Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries)

Office of Protected Resources

www.nmfs.noaa.gov

Annual Report

1999 - 2000

Administration of the Marine Administration of the Marine

Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Mammal Protection Act of 1972
NOAA X FISHERIES

1999 - 2000 executive summary

he passage of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA– 16 U.S.C. 1631)

gave the U.S. Department of Commerce, through NOAA and the National Marine

Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries), the responsibility for implementing the MMPA for all

species of whales, dolphins, porpoises, seals and sea lions. In addition, NOAA Fisheries

administers the provisions under the Endangered Species Act (ESA– 16 USC 1531-1544)

for marine mammal species listed under the ESA and also implements the Fur Seal Act of

1966 (16 U.S.C. 1151-1187). Under these Acts, NOAA Fisheries works to conserve, protect

and recover marine mammal species in U.S. waters and on the high seas by developing

national policy, implementing recovery planning and conducting scientific research. In

cooperation with the Marine Mammal Commission, federal and state agencies,

conservation groups, scientific researchers, the fishing industry, the public display

community and the general public, NOAA Fisheries seeks to provide sound management

planning to protect the health and stability of captive and wild marine mammals.

Since 1972, significant progress has been made in the management, protection and

conservation of marine mammals. For example, some populations of marine mammals

have recovered well enough to be removed from the threat of extinction. In other

cases, ground-breaking research has been conducted on critically endangered marine

mammals resulting in the development of more viable recovery planning. A permitting

program has been developed to provide authority for activities (i.e., research) on marine

mammals without causing unnecessary human encroachment. Today, many other

countries not only look toward the U.S. for guidance on marine mammal conservation

issues, but have also established their own laws and policies modeled after the MMPA.

The 1999-2000 MMPA Annual Report to Congress highlights important accomplishments

made during this time period, including implementation of a mandatory ship reporting

system to help in protecting Northern right whales from ship strikes, response to over

7,000 animals in need through the National Marine Mammal Stranding Network,

designation of the “Dolphin Safe Logo,” and partnerships with domestic and international

communities to further protect our nation's marine mammals. However, more progress is

needed. Critically endangered marine mammals, such as the Northern right whale and

Hawaiian monk seal, still remain on the brink of extinction. Additional detailed assessments of wild populations are needed to provide better information on human induced

injury or mortality, pollutants and other potentially harmful factors in the animals' environment. Additional efforts are also needed to further address the rapidly increasing

problem of close and harmful interactions between the public and wild marine mammals.

In the coming years, NOAA Fisheries will continue to build upon these past accomplishments and look ahead in further addressing areas of need. It is by advancing sound

management policies that include protective measures for marine mammals, while still

balancing commercial, recreational, scientific research and other human interests, that

NOAA Fisheries can be successful in preventing wild marine mammal populations from

diminshing beyond the point at which they are no longer a viable contributor to the

health and stability of the ecosystem.

William T. Hogarth, Ph.D.

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries

T

“Marine mammals have

proven themselves to be

resources of great

international significance,

esthetic and recreational

as well as economic, and

it is the sense of this

Congress that they

should be protected and

encouraged to develop

to the greatest extent

feasible commensurate

with sound policies of

resource management.”

(Section 2(6) of the

Marine Mammal

Protection Act of 1972)

This MMPA Annual

Report to Congress has

been prepared by

NOAA Fisheries pursuant

to sections 103(f),

104(h)(3)(C), 110(d) and

115(b)(3) of the MMPA.

Copies of all MMPA

Annual Reports are

available on-line and by

hard copy from the

Office of Protected

Resources in Silver

Spring, Maryland.

(See Appendix G. )

 Editor: Jill K. Lewandowski

Office of Protected

humpback whale tail; NOAA Fisheries
Annual Report to Congress on the

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972

Table of Contents able of Contents

chapter 1 - stock assessments ............................................................................. page 1

scientific review groups ................................................. page 2

stock assessment reports............................................... page 5

chapter 2 - conservation and recovery ............................................................ page 9

steller seal lion ................................................................. page 9

hawaiian monk seal ..................................................... page 12

cook inlet beluga whale.............................................. page 17

northern right whale ..................................................... page 21

chapter 3 - health and stranding response .................................................... page 30

national marine mammal stranding network ........... page 30

disentanglement network ........................................... page 38

unusual mortalities and anomalous events .............. page 39

national database system ........................................... page 41

national marine mammal tissue bank ....................... page 42

chapter 4 - permits and public display............................................................ page 43

permit regulations......................................................... page 44

general authorizations for scientific research.......... page 44

photography permits ................................................... page 44

public display ................................................................ page 44

* includes retention of stranded animals, marine mammal

inventory, captive exports, regulations, captive care,

permits, marine park closures and enforcement actions

chapter 5 - small take authorizations ............................................................... page 49

chapter 6 - interaction with commercial fisheries ........................................... page 50

annual list of fisheries .................................................... page 50

take reduction teams and plans ................................ page 52

* includes gulf of maine, mid-atlantic harbor porpoise,

atlantic off-shore cetacean, atlantic large whale

and pacific off-shore cetacean take reduction plans

serious and non-serious injury ..................................... page 60

authorization for incidental taking ............................. page 60

chapter 7 - dolphin/fishery interactions, eastern tropical pacific ................. page 61

international dolphin conservation program ........... page 62

harvesting nation embargoes .................................... page 65

intermediary nation embargoes ................................ page 65

litigation .......................................................................... page 66

total dolphin incidental mortality (1971-2000) .......... page 67

Annual Report to Congress on the

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972
Annual Report to Congress on the

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972

chapter 8 - native take ...................................................................................... page 68

bowhead whales .................................................. page 69

gray whales............................................................ page 69

northern fur seals ................................................... page 69

harbor seals ............................................................ page 70

steller sea lions ........................................................ page 70

cook inlet beluga whales...................................... page 72

chapter 9 - international activities .................................................................... page 73

international whaling commission ....................... page 73

cites ......................................................................... page 75

chapter 10 - education and outreach ............................................................ page 77

mmpa bulletin ....................................................... page 77

web-based outreach............................................ page 77

permit workshops................................................... page 77

commercial fishing and shipping industries........ page 78

watchable wildlife partnership ............................ page 78

promoting responsible marine wildlife viewing .. page 78

efforts in noaa fisheries regions ............................ page 82

appendices ........................................................................................................ page 86

summaries of marine mammal stocks ................. page 87

health and stranding response............................ page 93

interaction with commercial fisheries .................. page 98

noaa fisheries contact information.................... page 105
page 1

1999-2000

stock assessments

1) describe geographic range of affected stock,

including any seasonal/temporal variations

2) provide for such stock the minimum population

estimate, current and maximum net productivity rates, and current population trend,

including a description of the information upon

which these are based

3) estimate the annual human-caused mortality

and serious injury of the stock by source and,

for a strategic stock, other factors that may be

causing a decline or impeding recovery of the

stock, including effects on marine mammal

habitat and prey

4) describe commercial fisheries that interact with

the stock, including -

a) the approximate number of vessels

actively participating in each such

fishery

b) the estimated level of incidental

mortality and serious injury of the stock

by such fishery on an annual basis

c) seasonal or yearly differences in such

incidental mortality and serious injury

d) the rate, based on the appropriate

standard unit of fishing effort, of such

incidental mortality and serious injury,

and an analysis stating whether such

level is insignificant and is approaching

a zero mortality and serious injury rate

5) categorize the status of the stock as one that

either -

a) has a level of human-caused mortality

and serious injury that is not likely to

cause the stock to be reduced below

its optimum sustainable population or

b) is a strategic stock, with a description

of the reasons therefore and

ections 117 and 118 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) establish a long-term regime for

governing interactions between marine mammals and

commercial fishing operations. These sections direct

NOAA Fisheries to complete Stock Assessment Reports

(SARs), convene Scientific Review Groups (SRGs), publish

the List of Fisheries (LOF), convene take reduction teams

in order to form take reduction plans, and meet both

short- and long-term goals for reducing incidental takes

of marine mammals. These are all components of a

comprehensive program designed to reduce interactions between marine mammals and commercial fishing

operations.

The formation of a take reduction team to reduce

interactions between marine mammals and commercial

fisheries is dependent on a fishery’s classification in the

LOF and whether its status is strategic according to the

SAR. In addition, the SARs provide much of the data

used during the development of the take reduction

plans. The results of observer programs, which are used

to collect data on the level of incidental mortality and

serious injury in Category I and II fisheries, are presented

in the SARs. As NOAA Fisheries begins to implement take

reduction plans in order to meet the short- and long-term

goals of the MMPA, recommendations and comments

from the SRGs will continue to play a critical role as NOAA

Fisheries monitors fisheries to ensure that incidental

marine mammal mortalities and serious injuries decline

over time to insignificant levels. For more information on

programs for reducing interactions between marine

mammals and commercial fisheries, see Chapters 6-7.

Section 117 of the MMPA requires NOAA Fisheries and

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to prepare and

periodically update marine mammal stock assessments.

The SARs indicate whether the status of a marine

mammal stock is considered “strategic” and provide

much of the data NOAA Fisheries uses to classify fisheries

under section 118 in the LOF.

Section 117 (a)(1) states that NOAA Fisheries shall:

“... prepare a draft stock assessment for each marine

mammal stock which occurs in waters under the

jurisdiction of the United States. Each draft stock

assessment, based on the best scientific information

available, shall -

S

chapter 1

NOAA X FISHERIES

pilot whale pod; M. Payne, NOAA Fisheries
stock assessments page 2

SRGs review draft stock assessments and advise NOAA

Fisheries concerning marine mammal population status,

trends, stock identity, and dynamics; uncertainty and

research needed on the marine mammal stocks and

research needed to identify methods to reduce

incidental mortality and injury; habitat degradation and

appropriate measures to reduce impacts; and any

other issue NOAA Fisheries or the groups consider

appropriate in pursuing the goals of the MMPA. SRG

members are required to have expertise in marine

mammal biology and ecology, population dynamics

and modeling, commercial fishing techniques and

practices, or stocks under section 101(b) in order to

provide balanced and representative viewpoints in

their discussions.

All three SRGs met in a joint session in Seattle, Washington, in April 1999. The joint meeting was scheduled to

(1) provide a forum for comments and exchange of

information among SRGs, and (2) develop recommendations on issues of common concern to the three

SRGs. Recommendations from the joint meeting were:

S NOAA Fisheries finalize as soon as

possible the definition of the Zero

Mortality Rate Goal (ZMRG)

S NOAA Fisheries and the USFWS, when

collecting pathology data on stranded

animals, collect life history data and

voucher specimens, especially for

unusual stranding events

S NOAA Fisheries and USFWS attempt to

work with treaty tribes to collect

information on takes of marine

mammals so that it can be included in

SARs

S NOAA Fisheries and USFWS make all

efforts to document all takes of marine

mammals, regardless of source

S NOAA Fisheries and USFWS: (a) publish

all SARs every year; (b) review and

revise as necessary the SARs for

strategic stocks every year; and (c)

review and revise as necessary the

SARs for non-strategic stocks at least

once every three years

S NOAA Fisheries establish: (a) specific

reclassification criteria for all species or

distinct populations segments listed as

endangered or threatened under the

ESA; and (b) specific declassification

criteria for all stocks designated as

depleted under the MMPA

S NOAA Fisheries convene a working

group to develop a draft proposal for

a standardized framework for

assigning a recovery factor to

endangered marine mammals

6) estimate the Potential Biological Removal (PBR)

level for the stock, describing the information

used to calculate it, including the recovery

factor.”

Stock assessment reports are available in electronic form

from the Internet. Reports can be retrieved as compilations (large files by year and region) or individually by

population from the following Internet address:

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/PR2/

Stock_Assessment_Program/sars.html

Scientific Review Groups

Section 117 of the MMPA requires the establishment of

three regional SRGs representing Alaska, Pacific Coast

(including Hawaii), and Atlantic Coast (including the Gulf of

Mexico). In compliance with requirements, the SRGs were

created under the direction of the Secretary of Commerce in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, the

Marine Mammal Commission, the Governors of affected

adjacent coastal States, regional fishery and wildlife

management authorities, Alaska Native organizations and

Indian tribes, and environmental and fishery groups. The

1999-2000 Stock Assessment Reports

Alaska

Hill, P. S. and D.P. DeMaster. 1999. Alaska marine Mammal Stock

Assessments, 1999. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical

Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-110. 166 pp.

Ferrero, R.C., D.P. DeMaster, P.S. Hill, M.M. Muto, and A.L. Lopez.

2000. Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessments, 2000. U.S.

Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSAFSC-119. 191 pp.

Atlantic

Waring, G.T., D.L. Palka, P.J. Clapham, S. Swartz, M. C. Rossman,

T.V.N. Cole, L.J. Hansen, K.D. Bisack, K.D. Mullin, R.S. Wells, D.K. Odell,

and N.B. Barros. 1999. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine

Mammal Stock Assesssments – 1999. U.S. Department of Commerce

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-153. 196 pp.

Waring, G.T., J.M Quintal, and S.L. Swartz (eds.). 2000. U.S. Atlantic

and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments – 2000. U.S.

Department of Commerce NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE162. 303 pp.

Pacific

Forney, K.A., M.M. Muto, and J. Baker. 1999. U.S. Pacific Marine

Mammal Stock Assessments: 1999. U.S. Department of Commerce

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC-282. 62 pp.

K.A. Forney, J. Barlow, M.M. Muto, M. Lowry, J. Baker, G. Cameron, J.

Mobley, C. Stinchcomb, and J.V. Carretta. 2000. U.S. Pacific Marine

Mammal Stock Assessments: 2000. U.S. Department of Commerce

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC-300. 276 pp.
page 3 stock assessments

S Develop and implement a standardized system

for recording marine mammal serious injuries

and mortalities from all kinds of human

interactions

S In consultation with the SRG, develop criteria

for determining when to change from default

values to a data-based value for Rmax

S Work with Alaska Native marine mammal

commissions to establish a co-management

agreement for subsistence harvest monitoring

programs for harbor seals and Steller sea lions

and

S Continue the Alaska observer program in Cook

Inlet for an additional year with the following

priorities for subsequent years: (1) Kodiak and

Yakutat salmon setnet fisheries; (2) Southeast

Alaska salmon driftnet and purse seine fisheries;

and (3) Bristol Bay salmon set and driftnet

fisheries.

The Alaska SRG met again in November 2000 in Juneau,

Alaska. Discussion during that meeting was focused

primarily on Alaska harbor seals, with emphasis on

molecular genetics for stock structure analyses and

factors related to haulout behavior (with corresponding

effects on counts). The SRG also reviewed drafts of the

2001 stock assessment reports prior to their release for

public review and comment.

Recommendations from the November 2000 meeting

included the following:

S NOAA Fisheries should: (1) complete the harbor

seal genetics studies, including additional

sampling where necessary to support stock

structure analyses and (2) use the results from

molecular genetics to redefine harbor seal

stock boundaries

S Reconsider the presently used method of

calculating PBR for central North Pacific

humpback whales by calculating separate

values for feeding concentrations of whales

S Re-evaluate the status of the northern fur seal

and report the results of this analysis at a future

meeting and

S Revise stock structure (and SARs) for killer whale

stocks in the North Pacific

S The phrase “management stock” replace

“population stock” within the MMPA

S NOAA Fisheries uniformly apply the present PBR

guidelines

S NOAA Fisheries and USFWS consistently

implement guidelines for defining stocks of

marine mammals

S Standardize and improve communications

between SRGs and the agencies: (a)

forwarding SRG recommendations to the

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries or to the

Director of the appropriate USFWS region; (b)

posting minutes and reports from SRG meetings

on NOAA Fisheries websites; (c) agencies

provide substantive written response to all SRG

recommendations in a timely manner; and (d)

providing the SRGs with annual spending plans

for the marine mammal program and

S NOAA Fisheries and USFWS secure additional

funding for marine mammal research

A report of the meeting was prepared and published as

the following document:

Merrick, R.L. (Compiler). 1999. Report of the Joint

Scientific Review Group Workshop, April 13-14, 1999,

Seattle, Washington. U.S. Department of Commerce

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-154. 22 pp.

Alaska Scientific Review Group

Following its meeting in Juneau, Alaska, October 1999,

the Alaska SRG forwarded two letters with recommendations to the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries. One

letter concerned the status and conservation of the

Cook Inlet stock of beluga whales, and the other letter

transmitted other recommendations related to marine

mammal research and conservation.

The letter related to beluga whales expressed issuespecific concerns of the SRG, summarized NOAA

Fisheries efforts to conserve or to collect additional

information on the stock, and made recommendations

for additional work, including the following:

S Develop and implement a co-management

agreement to maintain a carefully controlled

subsistence harvest on the stock

S Continue and expand tracking Cook Inlet

belugas with satellite-linked tags

S Use a recovery factor of 0.1 in calculating the

PBR for this stock

The recommendations in the second letter included the

following:

S Use available data on life history characteristics

of Dall’s porpoise to estimate a value of Rmax

for this species and other cetaceans with

similar biological traits

aerial survey of harbor seal haul out area;

M. Payne, NOAA Fisheries file photo
stock assessments page 4

incidental takes of U.S. marine mammal stocks

by Canadian and other non-U.S. longline fishing

fleets (through the International Convention for

the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas)

S Use consistent scoring of human interactions

across stranding cases, using published

protocols; report, audit and use these data to a

greater extent to identify areas where

observer programs should be conducted

S NOAA Fisheries Northeast Fisheries Science

Center (NEFSC) conduct power analyses to

determine the appropriate level of observer

coverage required to measure and monitor

success in achieving the goals of the Harbor

Porpoise Take Reduction Plan

S Distribute reports describing the unusual

beaked whale strandings during 2000 in a

timely manner to the Regions and Centers

responsible for assessing the affected stocks

S NEFSC investigate the possible effects of reallocating observed takes in the Gulf of Maine

sink gillnet fishery made in strings of nets with

non-functioning pingers to the bycatch rate of

non-pingered nets

S NEFSC use existing sighting data to generate a

line transect of abundance for Northern right

whales in the Gulf of Maine and compare this

estimate to the census for Northern right

whales in the North Atlantic Right Whale

Consortium’s identification catalog

S In consultation with local researchers and

managers, develop a scientific plan for

cetacean stocks in Puerto Rico and the U.S.

Virgin Islands to define objectives and

information needs required under the MMPA

and Endangered Species Act (ESA)

The SRG also commended the SEFSC for developing a

cooperative agreement with Minerals Management

Service and the U.S. Navy to augment limited funds to

support marine mammal assessments in the Gulf of

Mexico.

Pacific Scientific Review Group

The Pacific SRG met in conjunction with the biennial

meeting of the Society for Marine Mammalogy in Maui,

Hawaii, in December 1999. The Pacific SRG made the

following recommendations to NOAA Fisheries during

the meeting:

S More research is needed on sperm whales in

the North Pacific to: (1) apply the sperm whale

group size correction factor to the abundance

estimates from recent surveys; (2) determine

stock structure and boundaries by increasing

tissue sampling for genetic analyses; and (3)

expand future surveys offshore and northward

through the Gulf of Alaska

Atlantic Scientific Review Group

The Atlantic SRG met in Woods Hole, Massachusetts in

November 1999. The SRG submitted the following

recommendations to NOAA Fisheries:

S Do not use funds appropriated to support

MMPA and ESA implementation for labor costs

S Take expeditious action to reduce anthropogenic sources of mortality and serious injury in

the range of the Northern right whale

S Examine the spotted dolphin complex in the

Western North Atlantic in greater detail, with

expeditious processing of existing genetics

samples

S Develop a preliminary estimate of bottlenose

dolphin abundance in the mid-Atlantic with

data from the 1998 and 1999 Gordon Gunter

surveys

S NOAA Fisheries Southeast Fisheries Science

Center (SEFSC) should conduct a survey of the

coastal Western North Atlantic stock of

bottlenose dolphins in FY2000 that includes

biopsy sampling for stock structure analyses,

with survey design developed in consultation

with scientists from other science centers

The list of recommendations also included additional

items that addressed stock assessment reports and are

not included here.

In November 2000, the Atlantic SRG met in Lajas, Puerto

Rico where discussion centered around marine

mammal research and conservation in Puerto Rico and

Western North Atlantic coastal bottlenose dolphins.

Recommendations from the SRG to NOAA Fisheries

included the following:

S Conduct research as soon as possible to

systematically obtain genetic samples and

photo-identification data for bottlenose

dolphins in the coastal waters from the FloridaGeorgia border, northward to the northernmost

extreme of bottlenose dolphin distribution, and

between shore and the 35-m depth contour

S Convene the planned Take Reduction Team on

bottlenose dolphins to reduce bycatch even in

the absence of revised population information

S Conduct field tests on surrogate species to

determine the effects of such tags on the

health and welfare of individual whales prior to

further research involving implantable tags on

Northern right whales

S Determine the stock identification for harbor

porpoises observed off Southwest Nova Scotia

S Conduct a comparison of temporal trends in

(1) data on fishing effort from logbooks, (2)

swordfish landings data, and (3) estimates of

catch per unit effort and request data on
page 5 stock assessments

S NOAA Fisheries should complete its analysis of

fishery progress toward the ZMRG and have

the analysis reviewed by the SRG in advance of

the statutory guideline for achieving the ZMRG

Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports

The MMPA requires NOAA Fisheries and USFWS to

review the stock assessment reports annually for

strategic stocks of marine mammals and every three

years for stocks determined to be non-strategic and

revise them with any new information. In 1999 and

2000, NOAA Fisheries revised those reports for which

significant new information was available. Updated

SAPs are available on-line at:

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/PR2/

Stock_Assessment_Program/sars.html

Alaska Stock Assessment Reports

For 1999, NOAA Fisheries, in conjunction with the Alaska

SRG, reviewed information available for all strategic

stocks of Alaska marine mammals under its authority, as

well as for several other stocks. A total of 13 of the 33

Alaska SAPs were revised for 1999. Most proposed

changes to the SAPs incorporated new information into

mortality estimates. The revised SAPs included Western

U.S. Steller sea lions, Eastern U.S. Steller sea lions, all five

beluga whale stocks (Cook Inlet, Bristol Bay, Eastern

Bering Sea, Eastern Chukchi Sea, and Beaufort Sea),

Western North Pacific humpback whales, Central North

Pacific humpback whales, Baird’s beaked whales,

Stejneger’s beaked whales, and Cuvier’s beaked

whales. In addition, the SAP for the Eastern North

Pacific transient killer whale stock was revised and

moved to the Pacific region document. The new

information on abundance and mortality did not

change the status (strategic or not) of any of these 13

Alaska stocks relative to the last time the respective

SAP was revised (1996 or 1998).

Fishery mortality sections in the revised reports were

updated to include observer programs, fisher selfreporting, and stranding data through 1997, where

possible. Similarly, subsistence harvest information

through 1997 was included for those stocks that are

taken by Alaska Natives for subsistence purposes. New

abundance estimates were available and were

included in the revised assessments for two stocks:

Western U.S. Steller sea lions and Cook Inlet beluga

whales. New PBR estimates were calculated for those

stocks having new abundance estimates.

For the 2000 SAPs, NOAA Fisheries, in conjunction with

the Alaska SRG, reviewed information for all strategic

stocks of Alaska marine mammals as well as Pacific

white-sided dolphins, harbor porpoise (3 stocks), Dall’s

porpoise, and gray whales. A total of 14 of the 32

S Conduct a comprehensive survey of the

Hawaiian archipelago to obtain information on

the abundance and status of Hawaiian

cetacean stocks

S Recategorize the Hawaiian longline fishery from

Category III to Category II (although it could be

Category I because observer data indicate

that the incidental mortality of false killer whales

exceeds the PBR for that stock)

S Conduct research on pilot whales to investigate the virtual disappearance of pilot whales

from areas near the California coast

S Continue to study the recruitment of marine

debris into the reefs and waters surrounding

Hawaiian monk seal rookeries, and continue

removing debris to reduce the risk of Hawaiian

monk seal entanglement

S Revise the current stock boundaries for Pacific

Coast harbor porpoise, based upon current

genetics data and information on harbor

porpoise densities, research survey data, and

fisheries information

S Consider the Central California harbor

porpoise as a strategic stock and continue the

observer program of the Monterey Bay shark/

halibut gillnet fishery

S The Working Group on Recovery Factors (see

recommendations from the Joint SRG meeting,

above) should prepare guidelines for using

alternatives to the default recovery factors for

endangered species and adopt these

guidelines for the 2001 SARs

The Pacific SRG met again in November 2000 in Astoria,

Oregon. The following recommendations, many of

which reiterated recommendations the group made in

November 1999, were submitted to NOAA Fisheries:

S More research is needed to determine stock

structure and boundaries of sperm whales in

the Northern Pacific by increasing tissue sample

collection and expanding future surveys

offshore and northward

S Conduct a comprehensive survey of the

Hawaiian archipelago on the abundance and

status of Hawaiian cetacean stocks

S Initiate smaller-scale research projects to assist

in monitoring dolphin mortality and trends in

abundance in Hawaiian waters

S Recategorize the Hawaiian longline fishery from

Category III to Category I due to mortality of

false killer whales

S Obtain better abundance estimates for false

killer whales to calculate a reliable value for

PBR of that stock

S The Working Group on Recovery Factors should

prepare guidelines for alternative recovery

factors for endangered species
page 6 stock assessments

derived from sightings north of 45oN in the Gulf of Alaska

was used as the population estimate for this stock,

yielding the proposed minimum population estimate of

26,880 animals.

Appendix A, Table 1 –Summary table of Alaska marine

mammal stocks and changes to the report in 2000.

Marine mammal SAPs that were revised relative to the

1999 reports, and that have draft 2000 SAPs available,

are identified by a November 11, 1999 date of last

revision. Changes to the estimates of abundance,

human-caused mortality, and other items are also

indicated.

Atlantic Stock Assessment Reports

The 1999 Atlantic SAPs (including the Gulf of Mexico)

were prepared by staff of the NEFSC and SEFSC. NOAA

Fisheries staff presented the Reports at the November

1998 meeting of the Atlantic SRG and subsequent

revisions were based on their contributions and

constructive criticism.

Major revisions and updating of the SAPs were

completed only for Atlantic Coast strategic stocks and

Atlantic Coast and Gulf of Mexico stocks for which

significant new information was available. The stock

definitions were changed for four Atlantic stocks (Sei

whale, gray, harp and hooded seal) based on stock

area definitions used by international scientific

organizations (i.e., the International Whaling Commission

and the International Council for Exploration of the Sea).

A total of 31 of the 60 Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico SAPs

were revised for 1999. Most proposed changes

incorporated new information into mortality estimates.

The revised SAPs included 14 strategic and 17 nonstrategic stocks. Information on human interactions

(fishery and ship strikes) with the Northern right whale,

North Atlantic humpback whale, and Canadian East

Coast minke whale stocks were re-reviewed and

updated. Further, the status of three western North

Atlantic stocks (Atlantic spotted dolphin, Pantropical

spotted dolphin, and dwarf sperm whale) were

changed to non-strategic because the five-year (1993-

1997) mean annual mortalities in fishing operations were

below PBR. Conversely, the Western North Atlantic

stock of long-finned pilot whale was changed to

strategic.

For 2000, Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico SAPs were

prepared by staff of the NEFSC and SEFSC. The reports

were presented at the November 1999 meeting of the

Atlantic SRG, and subsequent revisions were based on

the group's advise. The 2000 SAPs contain updated

assessments of Atlantic strategic stocks and for Atlantic

and Gulf of Mexico stocks for which new information

was available.

Alaska SAPs were revised for 2000. These reports are

identified by a November 1, 1999 date-stamp at the

beginning of each report.

Most proposed changes to the SAP s incorporated new

information into mortality estimates. New PBR estimates

were calculated for those stocks having new

abundance estimates. The new information on

abundance and mortality did not change the status

(strategic or not) of any of the Alaska stocks relative to

the last time the respective SAP was revised.

As recommended by the Alaska SRG, NOAA Fisheries

changed the recovery factor for the Cook Inlet stock

of beluga whales. The recovery factor for this stock

decreased from 0.5 to 0.3. The Alaska SRG recommended a recovery factor of 0.1 be incorporated into

the 2000 report. However, three significant pieces of

information rsulted in the recovery factor remaining 0.3.

First, the Alaska Natives in the Cook Inlet area are

cooperating to control the harvest, and no belugas

were killed for subsistence in 1999. Second, the 1999

surveys indicate that the decline of the stock has

abated. Third, the first year of observer coverage

reported no belugas taken in Cook Inlet fisheries,

suggesting that mortality incidental to commercial

fishing does not appear to be a significant factor

affecting the Cook Inlet beluga stock. Therefore,

NOAA Fisheries intends to use a recovery factor of 0.3

until additional information indicates that a revision is

warranted.

The proposed minimum population estimate for the

North Pacific stock of Pacific white-sided dolphins was

reduced from 486,719 animals to 26,880 animals, which

would reduce the PBR from 4,867 animals to 269

animals. The minimum population estimate of 486,719

animals was based on an abundance estimate that

reflected the range-wide estimate of Pacific whitesided dolphins, rather than one that could be applied

just to the North Pacific stock. The full estimate was not

considered appropriate to apply to the North Pacific

management stock, but the portion of the estimate

California sea lions: NOAA Fisheries file photo
stock assessments page 7

California harbor porpoise, Northern California harbor

porpoise, Eastern North Pacific offshore killer whale,

California/Oregon/ Washington short-finned pilot whale,

California/Oregon/Washington sperm whale, and

California/Oregon/Washington-Mexico humpback

whale.

In the 1999 SAPs, fishery mortality sections were

updated to include information on fishery mortality,

fisher self-reporting, and stranding data through 1997,

where possible. New abundance estimates were

available and included for 10 of the 11 stocks.

Additional information on historic whaling has been

included for sperm whales, and several distribution

maps have been revised to include survey data

through 1996 and to exclude outdated data from the

1970s and early 1980s. The recovery factor was revised

for four stocks (Central California harbor porpoise,

California/Oregon/Washington short-finned pilot whale,

Eastern North Pacific southern resident killer whale and

Eastern North Pacific transient killer whale). The previous

California/Oregon/Washington killer whale stock was

eliminated, based on new information on stock

structure of Eastern North Pacific killer whales. The

animals from this stock were divided between two

other stocks: (1) the existing Eastern North Pacific

transient stock, whose range description has been

expanded southward to include California, and (2) a

new ‘Eastern North Pacific Offshore’ stock, ranging

from Southeast Alaska to California. The Eastern North

Pacific transient killer whale stock, which was previously

published in the SAPs for the Alaska Region, was also

moved and included with the 1999 Pacific Region

reports.

There were no changes in the status of any of the 11

Pacific Region stocks, with four remaining strategic and

seven non-strategic. The four strategic stocks included

three stocks of endangered species that are automatically considered strategic, and the California/Oregon/

Washington short-finned pilot whale, for which a take

reduction plan was implemented.

A total of 28 of the 60 Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico SARs

were revised for 2000. Most of the proposed changes

incorporate new information into sections on population size and mortality estimates. The revised reports

include 15 strategic and 13 non-strategic stocks. For

the first time, individual species abundance estimates

were available for the Western North Atlantic stocks of

Atlantic spotted and Pantropical spotted dolphins.

Based on recent modeling that suggests that the

population of the Western North Atlantic stock of

Northern right whales is in decline, the maximum net

productivity for this stock was estimated as zero and,

therefore, PBR for this stock was reduced to zero. This

decrease changed the focus of the Atlantic Large

Whale Take Reduction Team from concentrating on

reducing to eliminating the incidental mortality and

serious injury of right whales. Information on human

interactions (fishery and ship strikes) with the Northern

right whale, humpback whale, fin whale, and minke

whale stocks were reviewed and updated.

The stock definition for humpback whales was changed

from the North Atlantic stock to the Gulf of Maine stock,

based on genetic analysis and the fidelity of whales to

this region for feeding. Although the stock structure

was revised, the abundance estimate remained te

sameas for the entire North Atlantic aggregation of

humpback whales. Existing data did not allow NOAA

Fisheries to separately estimate abundance for the Gulf

of Maine feeding stock.

The Western North Atlantic stock of long-finned pilot

whales was changed to "strategic” based on the

annual incidental mortality estimate.

Appendix A, Table 2- Summary table of Atlantic and Gulf

of Mexico marine mammal stocks and changes for

2000. Marine mammal SAPs that were revised relative

to the 1999 reports, and that have 2000 SAPs available,

are identified by a September 2000 date of last revision.

Changes to the estimates of abundance, humancaused mortality, and other items are also indicated.

Pacific Stock Assessment Reports

For 1999, NOAA Fisheries reviewed new information

pertaining to the status of all stocks within the Pacific

Region (including Hawaii) and, in consultation with the

Pacific SRG, decided there was sufficient new

information to warrant the revision of 11 SAPs. The draft

assessment reports for 1999 include four written by the

National Marine Mammal Laboratory (NMML), including

the Oregon and Washington Coast harbor porpoise,

Inland Washington harbor porpoise, Eastern North

Pacific Southern resident killer whale and Eastern North

Pacific transient killer whale. The Southwest Fisheries

Science Center prepared stock assessments for the

following seven stocks: Hawaiian monk seal, Central

breaching humpback whale:

S. Swartz, NOAA Fisheries file photo
stock assessments page 8

For 2000, NOAA Fisheries revised all stock assessments

for Pacific marine mammal stocks under NOAA Fisheries

jurisdiction. New abundance estimates are available

and have been included for ten Hawaiian stocks and

25 U.S. West Coast stocks. The assessments in the

appendices of this annual report include stocks studied

by the Southwest Fisheries Science Center and the

NMML. The Pacific and Alaska SRGs reviewed and

commented on earlier versions of these draft SAPs.

Mortality estimates for the California drift gillnet fishery

were based on data from 1997-1998 because

entanglement rates of marine mammals decreased

after implementation of the Take Reduction Plan in

1997. In 2000, the California/Oregon/Washington stock

of short-finned pilot whales was classified as not

strategic. Including driftnet mortality only for years after

implementation of the Take Reduction Plan (1997-1998),

the average annual human-caused mortality in 1997-

1998 (three animals) was estimated to be less than the

PBR, and, therefore, they were not classified as

strategic.

The Central California stock of harbor porpoise was

classified as strategic because of increased mortality

from the halibut set gillnet fishery. The average annual

mortality for 1996-1998 was greater than the calculated

PBR for Central California harbor porpoise. Based on

the success of reducing harbor porpoise mortality in

East Coast fisheries, NOAA Fisheries encouraged

voluntary use of pingers in the Central California set

gillnet fishery. The observer program for this fishery was

continued to provide information on the success of the

voluntary measures.

The Hawaii stock of false killer whales was listed as

strategic because the rate of serious injury to false killer

whales within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone in the

Hawaii longline fishery exceeds the PBR. However, the

available abundance estimate, on which PBR was

based, included only a portion of the species’ range in

Hawaiian waters. Additional studies of abundance,

distribution, and fishery-related mortality would be

required to re-evaluate this species’ status in the future.

The SAP for the California/Oregon/Washington stock of

dwarf sperm whale was discontinued. The lack of

reliable sighting or stranding records off the U.S. West

Coast since the 1970s suggested the stock did not

occur in waters under U.S. jurisdiction on a regular basis.

The stock of blue whale formerly known as the

‘California/Mexico stock’ was renamed the ‘Eastern

North Pacific stock’ to reflect current knowledge of

whale movements between the U.S. West Coast and

the Eastern Tropical Pacific. (Mate et al., 1999; Stafford

et al., 1999)

Appendix A, Table 3 - Summary table of Pacific marine

mammal stock changes during 2000. All of the Pacific

marine mammal stocks under NOAA Fisheries

jurisdiction were revised relative to the 1999 reports,

and have 2000 SAPs available. Changes to the

estimates of abundance, human-caused mortality, and

other items are also indicated.

Chapter References

Mate, B.R., B.A. Lagerquist, and J. Calambokidis. 1999.

Movements of North Pacific blue whales during feeding

season off Southern California and their southern fall

migration. Marine Mammal Science 15(4):1246-1257.

Stafford, K.M., S.L. Nieukirk, and C.G. Fox. 1999. An

acoustic link between blue whales in the Eastern

Tropical Pacific and the Northeast Pacific. Marine

Mammal Science 15(4):1258-1268.
page 9

1999-2000

conservation and recovery

monitor population trends and elucidate the cause or

causes of the Steller sea lion decline.

Since the listing of the Steller sea lion in 1990, NOAA

Fisheries and the ADFG have conducted subadult/

adult and pup surveys to assess Steller sea lion

populations. Results of these population assessment

surveys are published routinely as part of the NOAA

Technical Memorandum series on Steller sea lion

abundance estimates. Each year, results of aerial and

land-based surveys are presented to the North Pacific

Fisheries Management Council (NPFMC) .

Population Assessments

NOAA Fisheries and ADFG conducted aerial and landbased surveys of Steller sea lions in Alaska during July

1999 and June 2000. The 1999 aerial survey was

restricted to the eastern Gulf of Alaska, where 2,072

non-pup Steller sea lions were counted on 23 rookery

and haul-out sites. The June 2000 counts resulted in a

total of 37,801 non-pups on 289 rookery and haul-out

sites from Southeast Alaska through the western

Aleutian Islands. Of these non-pups Alaska-wide,

28,187 were on the 94 trend rookery and haul-out sites,

which represented a decline of 3.2% from 1998 and

26.1% from 1990. The 33 trend rookeries Alaska wide

included 20,298 non-pups, indicating declines of 3.8%

from the 1998 count and 26.4% from 1990. Estimated

average annual rates of decline from 1990 to 2000

were 3.2% for all trend sites and 3.3% for the 33 trend

rookeries.

his chapter summarizes species conservation and

research activities, for four stocks of special concern,

undertaken by NOAA Fisheries in 1999 and 2000 pursuant

to the Marine Mammal Prtotection Act (MMPA) and

Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Steller Sea Lion

Steller sea lion distribution extends along the North Pacific

Ocean rim from the Kuril Islands and Okhotsk Sea and

South along the North American coast to California, with

centers of abundance and distribution in the Gulf of

Alaska and Aleutian Islands. Since the 1970s, the Steller sea

lion has declined by 80% or more throughout much of its

range in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) and Bering Sea/Aleutian

Islands Region (BSAI).

As a result of the decline, the entire species was listed as

threatened under the ESA in 1990. The most recent counts

suggest that within the central part of this range (from the

Kenai Peninsula to Kiska Island in the Western Aleutian

Islands), abundance declined by 27% from 1990 to 1998.

Between 1994 and 1998, counts of non-pup sea lions at

rookeries and haulouts of the western population declined

by 13%; counts of pups at trend sites declined by almost

20% in the same interval. In 1997, the species was split into

two management populations, and the western

population was reclassified as endangered.

Multiple factors are believed to have contributed to the

overall decline since the 1970s. The major impacts to the

decrease of the population have resulted from incidental

catches (prior to the mid-1980s) and from a reduction in

carrying capacity, which may have resulted from basic

environmental changes and/or competition for prey with

fisheries producing a reduction in available prey. Other

factors such as commercial harvests, disease, subsistence

harvests, shooting, and disturbance, have been

determined as producing minor effects to the Steller sea

lion population. Steller sea lion researchers and resource

managers alike continue their efforts today to delineate

causes for the decline and to determine effective

management tools for their recovery. Current progress

toward these goals is discussed below.

Research Activities in 1999 and 2000

NOAA Fisheries, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game

(ADFG), the North Pacific Universities Marine Mammal

Research Consortium, the Alaska SeaLife Center, and

others continued a cooperative research program to

T

chapter 2

NOAA X FISHERIES

Steller sea lions: NOAA Fisheries file photo
page 10 conservation and recovery

increases from 1990 to 2000 in Southeast Alaska were

1.9% for all trend sites and 1.6% for trend rookeries.

NOAA Fisheries counted 1,924 live pups at nine

rookeries and 75 live pups at three haul-out sites in

Alaska during June and July 2000. Taken together, the

number of pups at the nine rookeries declined by 4.1%

from 1998 to 2000, but this decline represented a

difference of only 83 pups.

Foraging Studies

Scientists from NOAA Fisheries and the USFWS

continued research on prey biomass for Steller sea lions

with echo integration-midwater trawl surveys aboard

the USFWS vessel Tiglax in March 1999. Although rough

seas limited the amount of research that was accomplished, surveys were conducted at sites near Kiska,

Kasotchi, and Ugamak. Preliminary estimates indicated

that midwater biomass was greatest at Ugamak

rookery. Seabird and other marine mammal sightings

were also recorded, along with oceanographic data.

In February and March 2000, scientists from NOAA

Fisheries and the USFWS again conducted field work

aboard the vessel Tila, with a primary goal of capturing

juvenile and pup sea lions for collection of blood and

other biological samples and for deployment of

statellite-linked time/depth recorders. Much of the field

work was conducted under storm or gale-warning flags

due to a series of low-pressure weather systems in the

area. Scientists captured nine pup and yearling sea

lions and deployed VHF transmitters and time/depth

recorders on eight of the nine captured animals. No

electronic tags were attached to a small female pup

captured at Sequam Island. Blood samples for serum,

hematocrit, and white cell counts were taken from all

nine sea lions.

Marmot Island Field Studies

A 20-year study of sea lions at Marmot Island by NOAA

Fisheries and ADFG continued during 1999. Objectives

of the 1999 field work were to continue monitoring the

population of Steller sea lions through counts by age

and sex class (territorial males, nonterritorial males,

females, juveniles, and pups) and by resightings of

branded and tagged animals. Approximately 750 pups

were branded at Marmot Island during 1987 and 1988,

and six of these were resighted during 1999.

Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultations on

Fishery Management Actions

On February 26, 1998, NOAA Fisheries concluded that

the 1996 BO on the effects of the groundfish fishery on

Steller sea lions remained valid for 1998.

Most of the sites surveyed in 2000 (264 of 289 sites)

were part of the Western stock, which includes animals

from the Eastern GOA (144E W) through the Western

Aleutian Islands. The June 2000 count of 25,384 nonpups at all 264 sites in the Western stock indicated

declines of 13.9% from 1998 and 31.7% from 1991, with

an estimated annual decline of 4.0%. At 82 rookery and

haul-out trend sites in the Western stock, the June 2000

count of 18,325 represented declines of 10.3% from

1998 and 40.0% from 1990. The 13,402 non-pups at the

30 Western-stock trend rookeries indicated declines of

18.5% from 1998 and 39.9% from 1990. The estimated

average annual decline from 1990 to 2000 was 5.1% for

all Western-stock trend sites, as well as for Western stock

trend rookeries.

In the Kenai Peninsula to Kiska Island index area, a

subarea within the Alaska portion of the Western stock,

21,381 non-pups were counted at 227 surveyed sites, a

decline of 12.3% from 1998 and 22.1% since 1991. Of

these, 15,279 were at 69 trend sites (26 rookeries and

43 haulouts), and 11,738 were at 26 trend rookeries.

These counts represented declines from 1998 to 2000

of 6.9% and 3.1% respectively, for all trend sites and for

trend rookeries, and declines of 32.9% and 37.2% since

1990. Overall declines in the Kenai to Kiska areas have

been more than 80% since 1976 and about 70% since

1985. Estimated annual rates of decline in the Kenai to

Kiska index area were 2.5% for all 227 surveyed sites

from 1991 to 2000, 3.9% for the 69 trend sites and 4.7%

for the 26 trend rookeries from 1990 to 1998.

The Eastern stock is represented in Alaska only in

Southeast Alaska, where 12,417 non-pups were

counted at 25 sites in June 2000. The count of 9,862

non-pups at 12 trend sites represented increases of

13.4% from 1998 and 29.3% from 1990. At the three

trend rookeries in Southeast Alaska, 6,896 non-pups

were counted, which represented increases of 4.4%

from 1998 and 25.6% from 1990. Estimated annual

Steller sea lions: NOAA Fisheries file photo
conservation and recovery page 11

reducing the percentage of the pollock TAC that is

available to the fishery during the fall and winter months.

In June 1998, NPFMC recommended a regulatory

amendment to the Secretary of Commerce that would

impose an A/B season apportionment (50:50) of Atka

mackerel TAC in each of the three management areas,

and would incrementally shift the fishery catch until a

target split of 40% inside critical habitat and 60% outside

critical habitat was reached in 2002. Consequently, the

proposed action included the conservation measures

recommended by the NPFMC to avoid potential

competition between the Atka mackerel fishery and

the Steller sea lion. Those measures should reduce

potential localized mackerel depletions by temporally

dispersing the fishery into two seasons, and spatially

dispersing the fishery among areas inside and outside of

critical habitat. The subsequent division of the TAC

among seasons and sites should reduce considerably

the potential for localized depletion of prey resources

at any particular point in time or space. The incremental approach to reductions of TAC in Steller sea lion

critical habitat is reasonable since it allows some time

for detection of unanticipated adverse effects that

might result from redistribution of the fishery. As

proposed, the conservation measures will be fully

implemented by 2002. If these conservation measures

are fully implemented, the proposed action should not

appreciably reduce the likelihood of both the survival

and recovery of the Steller sea lion.

On October 21, 1998, the President signed into law the

American Fisheries Act (AFA), which changed the

allocation scheme for pollock in the BSAI beginning in

1999 (46 U.S.C. 2101, PL 105-277).

On December 3, 1998, NOAA Fisheries issued a BO on

three fisheries proposed for 1999-2002: (1) authorization

of an Atka mackerel fishery from 1999 to 2002 under

the Groundfish Management Plan of the BSAI area;

(2) authorization of a pollock fishery from 1999 to 2002

under the Groundfish FMP of the BSAI; and

(3) authorization of a walleye pollock fishery from 1999

to 2002 under the Groundfish Management Plan of the

GOA.

The BO concluded that the Atka mackerel fishery was

not likely to jeopardize the endangered Western

population of Steller sea lions or destroy or adversely

modify its designated critical habitat, but the pollock

fisheries of the GOA and BSAI, as proposed for 1999-

2002, were likely to jeopardize the Western stock of

Steller sea lions and destroy or adversely modify its

critical habitat. The opinion analyzed the effects of

these actions on the endangered Western population

of Steller sea lions and its critical habitat.

The BO did not prescribe a single set of Reasonable and

Prudent Alternatives (RPAs), but rather established a

framework to avoid the likelihood of management

On March 2, 1998, NOAA Fisheries issued a BO that

evaluated the effects of the GOA Fishery Management

Plan (FMP) and the 1998 pollock total allowable catch

(TAC) specifications on the Steller sea lion. NOAA

Fisheries concluded that the 1998 GOA fishery was not

likely to jeopardize the continued existence and

recovery of Steller sea lions or to adversely modify

critical habitat. NOAA Fisheries noted that the BO only

addressed the 1998 fishery, not the continued

implementation of the GOA FMP beyond 1998, and that

the NOAA Fisheries Alaska Region would need to

reinitiate Section 7 consultation for the fishery in 1999

and beyond.

This opinion authorized the same incidental take level

that was authorized in the 1996 opinion (15 Steller sea

lions for the GOA). The authorization would be reevaluated when additional data become available on

the number of sea lions injured or killed annually by gear

associated with this fishery. No reasonable or prudent

alternatives to these management measures were

identified. NOAA Fisheries was required to monitor the

level of incidental take that occured as a result of the

1998 GOA fishery and complete a report by March 15,

1999.

NOAA Fisheries included the following conservation

recommendations in this BO: (1) initiate studies of the

efficacy of buffer zones as soon as possible; (2)

continue studies to determine the foraging range of

young-of-the-year Steller sea lions; (3) continue to

educate the fishing community about Steller sea lions

and techniques to reduce or eliminate incidental take

of the species; and (4) conduct studies of the site-bysite relation between fishing effort and trends in juvenile

survival or counts at nearby rookeries.

On March 17, 1998, NOAA Fisheries issued regulations

for amendments 36/39 to the Bering Sea and Aleutian

Islands (BSAI) and GOA FMPs (63 FR 13009). This action

created a forage fish species category in FMPs and

implemented associated management measures. The

Proposed Rule (62 FR 65402) stated that: (1) forage fish

were important prey for marine mammals, seabirds,

and commercially important groundfish species, and

(2) decreases in the abundance of these predators

may be related to declines in forage fish. Directed

fishing for forage fish would be prohibited at all times in

the Federal waters of the BSAI and GOA. The intended

effect of this action was to prevent the development of

a directed commercial fishery for forage fish.

On June 11, 1998, NOAA Fisheries issued a final rule to

change the seasonal apportionment of the pollock TAC

in the Western Central Regulatory Areas of the GOA by

moving 10% of the TAC from the 3rd fishing season

(starting September 1) to the 2nd fishing season (starting

June 1) (63 FR 31939). This seasonal shift of TAC was a

precautionary measure intended to reduce the

potential impacts of pollock fishing on Steller sea lions by
conservation and recovery page 12

Hawaiian Monk Seal Hawaiian Monk Seal

Background And Objectives

The goal of the Hawaiian monk seal research program

is to enhance recovery of the critically endangered

Hawaiian monk seal population.

Major objectives of the program are to:

1) Monitor and assess the six main monk seal

reproductive subpopulations on the Northwestern

Hawaiian Islands (NWHI).

2) Study the ecology, biology, and natural history of the

Hawaiian monk seal.

3) Investigate and mitigate factors impeding the

recovery of this critically endangered species.

The Hawaiian monk seal is the only endangered marine

mammal residing entirely within U.S. waters, and its

future is in grave jeopardy. Beach counts (a historical

index of abundance) have declined by 60% since the

late 1950s, and 4% to 5% annually from 1985 to 1993.

Counts stabilized from 1993 to 1999, but will likely

continue to decline in the near future due to high

juvenile mortality and low reproductive recruitment at

French Frigate Shoals (FFS), the largest of the six main

NWHI reproductive subpopulations. In 1976, the species

was listed as endangered under the ESA. Although the

population remains at critically low numbers, the recent

stabilization of population trends has been facilitated by

mitigation efforts to enhance survival of females and by

natural recruitment.

Elements influencing population growth vary by

reproductive site. Naturally occurring factors that have

or may impede population growth include shark

predation, male aggression toward adult females and

immature seals of both sexes, habitat degradation due

actions and FMPs jeopardizing the continued existence

and recovery of Steller sea lions. This framework

included guidelines for management measures to

achieve three principles: (1) protection of waters

adjacent to rookeries and haulouts; (2) temporal

dispersion of the pollock fisheries; and (3) spatial

dispersion of the fisheries. The intended combined

effect of these three principles was to modify the

fisheries to avoid jeopardy and adverse modification.

On December 13, 1998, the NPFMC recommended

management measures for the two pollock fisheries to

comply, in part, with the framework established in the

NOAA Fisheries December 3, 1998 opinion. On

December 16,1998, NOAA Fisheries adopted the

measures recommended by the NPFMC (with

modifications) into the BO as part of a RPAs for the

fisheries.

On December 23, 1999, NOAA Fisheries issued a BO on

the authorization of the BSAI and GOA groundfish

fisheries based on TAC specifications recommended by

the Council for 2000, and on authorization of the

fisheries based on statues, regulations, and management measures to implement the AFA. The opinion

concluded that based on the 2000 TAC specifications

and implementation of the AFA, the groundfish fisheries

would not cause jeopardy or adverse modifications for

listed species or their critical habitat.

On November 30, 2000, NOAA Fisheries completed a

BO on the authorization of the groundfish fisheries in the

BSAI under the FMP for BSAI groundfish and the

authorization of groundfish fisheries in the GOA under

the FMP for groundfish of the GOA. The opinion was

comprehensive in scope and considered the fisheries

and the overall management framework established by

the respective FMPs to determine whether that

framework contained necessary measures to ensure

the protection of listed species and their critical habitat.

The BO determined that the BSAI or GOA groundfish

fisheries, as implemented under the respective FMPs,

jeopardized the continued existence of the Western

population of Steller sea lions and adversely modified

their critical habitat. The BO provided a set of RPAs to

be partially implemented in 2001.

Hawaiian monk seals:

C. Yoshinaga,

NOAA Fisheries

Hawaiian monk seals:

C. Yoshinaga,

NOAA Fisheries
conservation and recovery page 13

tions are beach counts. Beach counts consist of the

average annual number of seals on the beach during

censuses. The censuses consist of timed, standardized

counts during which an entire island or atoll is surveyed

for seals. Identified individuals are counted only once

during the survey. The resulting counts do not reflect

total population size, but provide an index of population

size collected consistently between years and

locations. Data collected on each seal observed

during censuses include size class (pup, juvenile,

subadult, or adult), sex, island location, body condition

(a subjective estimate; e.g., fat or thin), individual

identity, and molt status. Single atoll-wide censuses at

locations with more than a single island (FFS, PHR, MID,

and KUR) are completed within a two-day period.

Individual Identification

Throughout the field season, individual seals are

identified by plastic tags, bleach marks, scars, or natural

markings. After weaning, pups are tagged on each

hind flipper with colored plastic tags uniquely coded to

indicate island or atoll population, year of birth, and

individual identity. In addition, Passive Integrated

Transponders or PIT tags are implanted subcutaneously

in the dorsum of most weaned pups.

Colored plastic Temple Tags have been applied to

nearly all weaned pups since the early 1980s. Since

1991, PIT tags have also been implanted in the ankle

(1991) or the dorsum (all subsequent years) of most

weaned pups. Older seals, which were never tagged

previously or have lost or broken tags, are opportunistically tagged with both plastic flipper tags and PIT tags.

Seals are also bleach-marked for individual identification at all sites except FFS, where bleaching the entire

population of seals has been impractical until recently.

At LAY and LIS, nursing pups are also bleached prior to

molt. Tags, scars, natural markings, and any applied

bleach marks are sketched on an individual scar card,

which is revised throughout the field season to maintain

a current description of the identifying marks of each

seal. Photographs of scars and natural markings are

added to individual identification files begun during the

early 1980s.

to storms and high seas, disease, and reduced prey

availability. Anthropogenic factors that have limited

population growth include entanglement in marine

debris and human disturbance.

The Hawaiian Monk Seal Program has identified five

critical elements for the recovery and conservation of

the endangered Hawaiian monk seal: (1) Population

Assessment, (2) Foraging Ecology, (3) Health and

Disease Assessment, (4) Documentation and Mitigation

of Impacts, and (5) Public Outreach and Education. The

need to implement all of these high priority projects is

consistent with the recommendations of the Hawaiian

Monk Seal Recovery Team (HMSRT), the Marine

Mammal Commission (MMC), the Southwest Fisheries

Science Center (SWFSC), and the Marine Mammal

Recovery Program (MMRP) of the Honolulu Laboratory.

Population Assessment and Monitoring

Population assessment and monitoring is a critical and

ongoing project at all main reproductive locations– FFS,

Laysan (LAY) and Lisianski (LIS) Islands, Pearl and Hermes

Reef (PHR), and Midway (MID) and Kure (KUR) Atolls.

Research efforts focus on assessing population

abundance, trends, survival, and age/sex composition.

This research is essential for identifying sites where

population growth is limited and for assessing consequences of mitigation efforts to enhance population

growth. Data from this work are also required for

population modeling to predict the outcome of

possible management strategies designed to enhance

the recovery of the species. Assessment activities were

initiated in the early 1980s, and progress to date has

been extensive, with many successes.

Current abundance of Hawaiian monk seals is

estimated to be approximately 1,300-1,400. To estimate

abundance all individual seals identified in a given year

at the six main subpopulations are summed. To this are

added estimates of the relatively small number of

animals at Necker Island, Nihoa Island, and the main

Hawaiian Islands (MHI). These estimates are based on

relatively scant data available from comparatively small

population centers. In recent years, the total abundance estimate has been slightly more than 1,400

individuals, 90% or more of which are typically counted

at the six main breeding subpopulations. Because the

total number of seals identified is tallied after nearly all

pups are born, it is recognized that at any given time

throughout the year, total abundance will be reduced

by natural mortality, especially among young-of-theyear. Recognizing this, 1,300-1,400 is a reasonable

estimate of total abundance.

Trends in Subpopulation Growth

The primary indices of historical population abundance

trends at each of the six main reproductive subpopulaHawaiian monk seals:

C. Yoshinaga, NOAA Fisheries
page 14 conservation and recovery

specific survival rates using standard Jolly-Seber

estimation methods. The probability of resighting an

individual seal at some time during a field season given

that seal is alive (i.e., the sighting probability, p) is

typically greater than 90% for all ages and locations. In

addition to annual survival rates, survival of pups from

birth to weaning is also monitored.

Factors that influence survival of individual seals are also

recorded. These include injuries from conspecifics,

large sharks, etc. Injuries are documented according to

standardized categories of severity. Entanglement in

marine debris, emaciation, and certain male mounting

events are recorded as potentially affecting survival. A

seal is considered dead if its carcass is observed. A seal

is listed as probably dead if it sustains severe injuries or is

emaciated (with skeletal structure clearly evident) and

subsequently disappears. In addition, to place a seal in

the probably dead category, observation of the

individual in a deteriorating or moribund condition is

required. Nursing pups were listed as probably dead if

they disappeared within three weeks of birth.

Trends in Weaned Pup Girth and Length

Straight dorsal length and axillary girth of weaned pups

were measured as soon after weaning as possible to

determine pup condition. In particular, the girth of pups

at weaning provides a measure of the ability of mothers

to provision pups for growth and with energy stores. This,

in turn, is used as an index of prey availability to

pregnant females. Only pups known to have been

measured within two weeks of weaning are included in

analysis of trends in pup condition among sites and over

time. Trends in weaned pup girths continue to increase

in the Eastern populations (FFS, LAY, and LIS) and have

shown little change in the remaining populations to the

West.

Prey Abundance

Relative changes in abundance of reef fish at fixed

stations have been surveyed annually at FFS and MID

since 1995. Changes in herbivorous and carnivorous fish

abundance are monitored and used to track potential

changes in the abundance of monk seal prey.

Monitoring included fish numbers, biomass, and size

composition. Studies have also been initiated to identify

potential linkages between environmental change,

oceanographic productivity, and monk seal prey

abundance. In 1998, surveys at FFS were extended to

deeper slopes (60 m) to include fish communities in

habitat where monks seals are known to forage.

Population Size

Population size and composition are determined at

locations where all seals have been identified (i.e.,

observers no longer encounter unidentified seals).

These statistics include all individuals seen alive at the

location during March through August and parturition

status data for females and their pups. If a seal is

observed at more than one location during MarchAugust, it is assigned to only one population total

according to standardized criteria.

Identification of all individuals is the preferred method

for monitoring population trends, and this is the goal for

all subpopulations. However, given that identification

effort has until recently been spatially and temporally

variable, beach counts remain the most accurate way

to assess historical trends in population abundance.

In 1999, the overall trend in abundance of monk seals in

the NWHI remained stable. Juvenile survival at FFS and

LIS increased, while rates at other sites remained

consistent with previous years. The number of pups that

weaned and were tagged at FFS in 1998 (n = 88) was

higher than in any other cohort since 1989, due in part

to the translocation of two aggressive males from FFS to

Johnston Atoll. Fortunately, this cohort also had

improved survival from tagging to age-1 (53%

compared to 14% for the 1997 cohort).

The total number of pups born in the six main reproductive subpopulations remained relatively high (243), with

more born at LAY (58) and LIS (33) Islands than in any

previous year on record. Unfortunately, while the

number of pups born at FFS in 1999 was typical, high

losses, most probably due to shark predation near Trig

and Whaleskate Islands, seriously reduced this cohort.

Reproductive Rates

Parturient females were identified, as above, and birth

and weaning information was recorded. Because

parturient females occasionally foster pups other than

their own, efforts are made to identify pups and

document changes in nursing relationships from birth to

weaning. Pup fostering occurs when two lactating

females exchange pups or when a lactating female

suckles multiple pups. Consistent field effort to

determine age-specific reproductive rates is available

from LAY and FFS, and to a lesser extent, LIS. At PHR and

KUR, many pups are already weaned when logistics

necessitate deployment of research camps so that the

identity of mothers is largely unknown. Until recently, few

pups have been born at MID. However, currently

virtually all mothers at that site are identified.

Survival Rates

Identification of individual known-aged seals on an

annual basis allows for estimation of age- and cohort-
conservation and recovery page 15

significant increases in percent neutrophils and declines

in percent lymphocytes and eosinophil were found for

FFS males. Albumin, creatinine, and Na/K ratio averages

were significantly higher among both females and

males on FFS (p<0.05). The implications of these findings

are uncertain but suggest that a subclinical disease

process may be affecting monk seals on FFS, requiring

further study.

Mitigation of Impacts to Enhance Survival Mitigation of Impacts to Enhance Survival

Translocation and Head Start Project

Since 1981, captive care and release programs have

been an important part of MMRP’s efforts to salvage

the reproductive potential lost at locations such as FFS

where juvenile mortality is high. These projects have

involved weaned female pups with a low probability of

survival that were either kept on site for care/

protection and released, (Head Start), or those

rehabilitated at a captive facility on Oahu, Hawaii and

translocated to more favorable reproductive sites.

Recent growth in the population at KUR has resulted

from the success of these efforts. The rehabilitation and

release program reached a hiatus in 1995 when 10 of

12 captive females contracted an eye condition of

unknown origin which made them unfit for release into

the wild.

Male Aggression

Mortality and injuries associated with male aggression

are placed in two categories—multiple male aggression or “mobbing” and single male aggression. In 1994,

22 males were removed from LAY to balance the sex

ratio. This successfully reduced the frequency of malerelated injuries and deaths to adult females and

juveniles of both sexes. In 1991 an aggressive male was

euthanized at FFS, and in 1998 two aggressive males

were relocated from FFS to Johnston Atoll as part of a

successful effort to mitigate the male-caused

mortalities of weaned pups. None of the translocated

males have returned to their original locations, and the

occurrence of injuries and deaths of females and

immature monks seals has significantly decreased in all

instances. Male aggression is carefully monitored at all

sites annually to assess the efficacy of our actions and

determine if additional mitigation is required.

Shark Predation

Recent studies have shown that shark predation has

become a significant factor contributing to pup

mortality at FFS. Pup deaths or disappearances related

to shark predation have been either directly observed

or inferred from known circumstances of shark

predation on pups. Pup mortality or injury from sharks

may occur weeks before weaning, unlike mortality

Future Research Related to Foraging Ecology

Future work will involve continued characterization and

assessment of monk seal habitat use, diet, and prey

abundance. This research is vital for identifying and

evaluating future recovery efforts and will focus on

issues stemming from concerns associated with possible

interactions between commercial fisheries and

Hawaiian monk seals. Habitat use will be characterized

through the use of time-depth recorders, CRITTERCAMS,

and satellite and radio telemetry. Prey consumption will

be assessed through scat/regurgitate analysis, and the

use of fatty acid signature analysis will be fully explored

to assess the relative importance of lobster and other

prey in the monk seals’ diet. Prey abundance will be

monitored during ongoing reef fish surveys, and the

results will be examined for potential relationships to

environmental changes in the marine ecosystem.

Health and Disease Assessments

The influence of disease on monk seal population trends

is poorly understood. Disease processes may be

important determinants of population trends through

chronic low levels of mortality or through episodic dieoffs. The mass mortality of monk seals that occurred at

LAY in 1978 may have been due to a disease process.

Similarly, disease may be contributing to the high

mortality of juveniles at FFS. In addition, the potential for

disease transmission has been an important concern in

management activities involving translocation of seals

between reproductive sites. Disease may have

contributed to the high mortality of seals translocated

to MID during 1992-93.

Since 1997, a total of 125 serum samples from monk

seals have been tested to evaluate exposure to viral

and bacterial pathogens in three wild monk seal

subpopulations (64 at FFS, 51 at PHR, and 10 at MID).

Screening sera for exposure to numerous potential

bacterial and viral pathogens has provided no

compelling evidence to suggest that infectious

disease(s) significantly influences population growth at

these locations.

A companion study involving a comprehensive

assessment of the health status of the Hawaiian monk

seal was undertaken to assess hematologic and

biochemical parameters in this endangered species

group and to establish normal baseline values for these

parameters within age and gender groups of the

species. Information from this study was used to

compare the declining population at FFS and the

increasing population at PHR. Standard laboratory

techniques were used to measure each parameter for

comparisons of adults between FFS (n = 34) and PHR (n

= 29). FFS females had higher mean white blood cell

counts than PHR females (p<0.05). The mean white

blood cell counts were similar among males; however,
conservation and recovery page 16

hagfish traps and plastic strapping bands. Four

entanglements were observed on nearshore reefs, 20

were first observed when seals were on beaches, and

one occurred at an unknown location (the seal was

observed with an entanglement scar only).

In 1999, 2,774 pieces of potentially entangling debris

were removed by MMRP personnel and cooperators

from beaches at the six Hawaiian monk seal breeding

sites. This is slightly fewer than the 3,136 pieces

collected from the same sites in 1998. Marine debris

was also removed from coral reefs to reduce the

threat of entanglement to monk seals and restore the

habitat.

Human Disturbance

Disturbance of monk seals resulting from human

activities in the NWHI (e.g., military activities, Coast

Guard facilities) likely had a significant effect on monk

seal population growth during the mid-1900s. The most

conspicuous consequence of disturbance is the

premature separation of suckling pups from their

mothers, decreasing the pup’s chances of survival

because of reduced fat reserves obtained from its

mother’s milk. Early separation of mother/pup pairs also

increases the pup’s vulnerability to shark predation and

male aggression.

Since 1981, MMRP personnel have worked in collaboration with the USFWS, U.S. Navy (USN), and U.S. Coast

Guard (USCG) to eliminate disturbance to monk seals

on their haul-out sites. Human activity on beaches used

by monk seals was significantly reduced after closure of

USCG facilities at FFS (1979) and KUR (1992) and the USN

facility on MID (1997). Subsequent to these closures,

conspicuous increases were reported at all three

populations locations.

There is some concern that ecotourism conducted by a

contractor to the USFWS on MID could result in

deleterious human disturbance to monk seals. However,

collaborative attempts between HL and USFWS have

apparently been effective in keeping disturbances to a

minimum.

MMRP continues to work with other government and

nongovernment entities to build a stronger stewardship

ethic to enhance the conservation and recovery of

endangered Hawaiian monk seals.

Simulation Model to Evaluate Management Strategies

One objective of the Hawaiian Monk Seal Population

Assessment Program is to improve the information

available to guide management decisions. For

example, management interventions in the monk seal

population have involved rehabilitating and translocating female pups, removing adult males to reduce

related to male aggression which usually occurs at or

near weaning. Annual known and inferred shark

mortality of pups < four weeks of age has been

increasing since the mid 1990s. In 1999, shark predation

accounted for the deaths of 51.1% (23 of 45) of the

pups born at Trig Island (FFS) and 9.4% (25 of 244) of all

pups born in the NWHI.

In 1998, at least 14 individual Galapagos sharks were

tagged and observed hunting pups at Trig Island. At

least one-four of the known sharks patrolled there daily

and at least eight of the 14 tagged sharks were

resighted at least once during the same year (four

Galapagos sharks were resighted at least three times).

A systematic tag resight study of sharks was not

conducted in 1999, but one of the tagged sharks from

the 1998 study was associated with the killing of a pup.

During the 2000 field season, a study was initiated to

assess the efficacy of a systematic removal of up to 15

sharks observed hunting monk seals at Trig Island and to

eliminate or reduce predation on nursing pups in order

to enhance early survival rates. This work will be

conducted in conjunction with other concurrent studies

which will determine the occurrence and number of

sharks preying on monk seals and assess shark

movement patterns within the atoll.

Removal of Debris From Monk Seals’ Haulout Areas

Despite international law prohibiting the intentional

discard of plastics from ships at sea, the amount of

debris washing ashore and entangling Hawaiian monk

seals in the NWHI is high and has shown no sign of

diminishing. Most of the debris documented (i.e., nets

and lines) was clearly from fishing or other maritime

industries. Vessels may be continuing to dump debris

despite regulations, or they may be losing gear during

operations.

Hawaiian monk seals continue to be victims of marine

debris. During the seals’ breeding season, MMRP

biologists regularly monitor the beaches on which the

seals haul out, removing any debris which could

entangle the animals as part of an ongoing project.

Twenty-five Hawaiian monk seals are known to have

become entangled in marine debris during 1999. This is

the highest annual total ever documented by MMRP

and is greater than both the 17-year (1982-1998) annual

average of 10.2 seals and the previous five-year (1994-

1998) average of 14.6 seals. Nineteen of these animals

were disentangled and released by MMRP field

personnel, and 6 escaped unaided. Most (23) of the

seals were encountered and released prior to

sustaining debris lacerations (seals are also stressed due

to the energetic burden caused by the extra weight

and drag from the debris). Entangling items comprised

lines (eight), nets (six), net/line combinations (three), and

other/unknown items (eight) including cones from
conservation and recovery page 17

Cook Inlet Beluga Whale

Of the five stocks of beluga whales in waters under U.S.

jurisdiction in Alaska, the Cook Inlet (CI) stock is the most

discrete. It is a relatively small, isolated stock that

inhabits mostly Northern CI in the summer, occuring in

Central or Southern parts of CI in winter. Occasionally, a

few belugas (thought to be ranging from CI) are seen

elsewhere in coastal areas of the GOA.

In the early 1990s, NOAA Fisheries was concerned that

the Native harvest of beluga in CI might be higher than

the stock could sustain. Accordingly in 1993, NOAA

Fisheries began annual aerial surveys of CI to document

the distribution and abundance of belugas and to

evaluate the trend in abundance. Concurrently, NOAA

Fisheries contracted with the CI Marine Mammal

Commission (CIMMC), a consortium of Native hunters,

to monitor and report on the number of beluga

harvested from CI. Results of this research and

monitoring efforts prompted NOAA Fisheries to

convene a formal status review of the stock. In

particular, the documented decline in abundance from

653 whales in 1994 to 347 in 1998, a reduction of nearly

50%, was a concern for the management of this stock.

Status Review

On November 19, 1998, NOAA Fisheries conducted a

workshop that initiated a formal status review of the CI

belgua stock (FR 64228). In the status review, NOAA

Fisheries evaluated the present status of the stock

through reports on population ecology, habitats, and

abundance estimates. The review provided a

background for decisions to be made on whether the

stock could be considered depleted under the MMPA

and/or threatened or endangered under the ESA.

This workshop coincided with similar workshops held by

the Alaska Beluga Whale Committee (November 16-17,

1998) and the Alaska Scientific Review Group (ASRG)

(November 18-20, 1998). The ASRG is a body established under the MMPA to provide scientific advice

regarding marine mammals to NOAA Fisheries and the

USFWS. (See Chapter 1- Stock Assessments- for more

information on SRGs.)

Following the workshop conducted by NOAA Fisheries,

a comment period was provided from November 19,

1998 through January 19, 1999. To ensure the status

was comprehensive and based on the best available

science, the comment period was followed by a NOAA

Fisheries sponsored workshop on March 8-9, 1999, in

Anchorage, Alaska. At this workshop, additional public

comments and recommendations were received.

Abstracts from presentations at these workshops were

included in a NOAA Fisheries report (AFSC Processed

Report 99-06) and were used in decisions to consider

this stock as depleted as defined in the MMPA but not

endangered or threatened under the ESA.

mortality from both single and multiple (mobbing) male

aggression and, currently, mitigating Galapagos shark

predation. The short- and long-term implications of such

activities are usually not immediately apparent.

Recognizing that a tool is needed to aid in decision

making, HL has undertaken the development of a

stochastic simulation model to realistically represent

salient aspects of monk seal biology and allow

managers to explore the likely outcomes of alternative

management scenarios over various time horizons.

The monk seal simulation model requires a large number

of parameters and initialization data, which are derived

primarily from the annual population assessment

research efforts. Information incorporated into the

model include age/sex composition, survival and

migration rates for each of the six subpopulations, and

birth rates derived from two sites. The monk seal . 

simulation model predicts future abundance and

population structure for a monk seal meta-population

consisting of six subpopulations. The model is spatially

implicit with distinct demographic parameters for each

subpopulation.

Routines in the model allow for the exploration of

various management strategies given alternative

scenarios. Translocation of female pups between sites

and the effects of mortality from shark predation and

both single and multiple male aggression can be

assessed. Also, the likely outcome of mitigation of these

sources of mortality can be explored. Though the

model is user friendly for nonprogrammers, it is also

complex and highly flexible. All demographic parameters can be altered, migration rates and density

dependence allowed or not, and all probabilities

relating to male aggression and shark predation can be

set by the user. The monk seal simulation model is

already a powerful tool for management decision

making, and further improvements are ongoing.

Beluga whales off ice shelf: NOAA Fisheries file photo
conservation and recovery page 18

Using a logistic model with productivity values taken

from the current CI beluga Stock Assessment Report

and an assumed carrying capacity of 1,300 whales,

NOAA Fisheries compared the rates of population

growth using no harvest and a harvest of two whales

per year. The no-harvest model indicated that the

stock would be expected to double in about two

decades. The latter model predicted that the harvest

of two whales per year would have a negligible impact

on the stock (i.e., such a harvest regime would not

cause a significant delay in recovery compared to the

no-harvest model).

Within reasonable probabilities, the habitat of the stock

has not been, nor is it likely to be, destroyed, modified or

curtailed in sufficient extent to cause the stock to be in

danger of extinction. The stock has not been overutilized for commercial, recreational, scientific or

educational purposes. The effects of disease or

predation are not well documented but are believed to

be minimal. The subsistence harvest is the only factor

that can account for the observed decline. In addition,

the MMPA provides an adequate mechanism to ensure

that future commercial activity in CI would have no

more than a negligible impact on the stock. Other

natural or manmade factors (subsistence harvest) have

affected the stock’s continued existence; however, the

current (since 1999) level of harvest would not have a

significant adverse impact on the continued existence

of CI beluga whales.

Just prior to NOAA Fisheries’ determination that listing

the stock under the ESA was not warranted, Trustees for

Alaska, on behalf of several conservation organizations

and an Alaska Native, filed suit against NOAA Fisheries

for failure to meet the required one-year deadline in the

ESA to make a determination on the petitions to list the

Depletion Finding

On January 21, 1999, NOAA Fisheries received a

petition from the State of Alaska to designate the CI

stock of belugas as depleted under the MMPA.

Following the status reviews and taking into account the

best available scientific information, on October 19,

1999, NOAA Fisheries proposed designating the CI

belugas as depleted (64 FR 56298) and followed this

with a public hearing on November 22, 1999 on the

proposed designation. NOAA Fisheries issued a Final

Rule on May 31, 2000 (65 FR 34590), designating the

stock of belugas whales in CI as depleted under the

MMPA based on the determination that the stock was

below its Optimum Sustainable Population (OSP) level.

Endangered Species Act Determination

After NOAA Fisheries had initiated the status review on

CI beluga whales and prior to a final determination on

the status of the stock, NOAA Fisheries received two

petitions to list the stock as threatened or endangered

under the ESA (both petitions were received in March

1999). On June 22, 2000 (65 FR 38778), NOAA Fisheries

made its determination that listing the CI stock of

beluga whales as threatened or endangered under the

ESA was not warranted. The following is the discussion

of the best available scientific information from that

determination.

The ESA instructs the Federal government to conduct a

review of the species status and include efforts by any

state or foreign nation to protect such species with any

area under its jurisdiction or the hish seas. As noted

above, NOAA Fisheries conducted this status review.

In 1993, NOAA Fisheries started annual surveys of

belugas in CI. The results showed a sharp decline in

estimated abundance, with the 1998 estimate (347

animals) nearly 50% lower than the 1994 estimate (653

animals).

The reported subsistence harvest of CI beluga whales

from 1995 through 1998 averaged 77 whales per year.

There was no harvest in 1999. NOAA Fisheries worked

with CIMMC to authorize a harvest of at least two

belugas per year (see "Limiting Subsistence Harvest").

The harvest, which has been identified as the only

factor that can account for the observed decline of

the CI beluga stock, is being controlled through Pub. L.

106-31 and will be controlled through regulatory

mechanisms that are available under the MMPA.

In simulation modeling efforts, NOAA Fisheries scientists

have demonstrated that the stock is not likely to

continue to decline if the harvest is controlled. Breiwick

and DeMaster (1999) showed that a stock with at least

300 individuals and a positive intrinsic growth rate, like

that of beluga whales, would not go extinct due to

stochastic events.

NOAA Fisheries' biologists satellite tag a wild

beluga whale in Cook Inlet, Alaska in order

to track movement and surface/dive

behavior; NOAA Fisheries file photo
conservation and recovery page 19

2) Subsistence harvest shall be limited to no more

than two strikes annually until the stock is no

longer considered depleted under the MMPA

3) Sale of CI beluga whale products is prohibited

4) All hunting for subsistence purposes shall occur

after July 15 each year and

5) Harvest of newborn calves, or adult whales

with maternally dependent calves is prohibited.

Issues Addressed at the Hearing

Interested persons or parties were given an opportunity

to file a notice of intent to participate in the hearing that

will be conducted in accordance with section 103(d) of

the MMPA. Interested persons or parties also filed

direct testimony and documentary exhibits. Parties who

submitted notice of intent to participate in the hearing

were advised to submit rebuttal testimony by November 28, 2000. Pursuant to the procedural regulations

governing the formal rulemaking hearing (reinstated on

June 27, 2000, 65 FR 39560), Judge Parlen McKenna

identified the participants and the final agenda as:

A. Population Estimates

1) What numbers are appropriate to use for:

a. Carrying capacity (K)

b. Current population size (N)

c. Intrinsic rate of growth (Rmax)

d. Lower bound of the optimum sustainable

population level (Maximum Net Productivity

Level) relative to the carrying capacity

2) Whether 2000 survey data will be available. If

so, why aren’t they being used?

3) Whether the recovery times projected by

NOAA Fisheries under different harvest regimes

are appropriate?

a. Whether recovery factor used by the NOAA

Fisheries is too conservative? If so, what is the

appropriate recovery factor?

b. Whether there is a consistent formula for

estimating the recovery time?

c. Have past formulas for population

parameters been developed? If so, what are

the formulas and why were they not adopted?

4) What factors, other than Native harvest of CI

beluga whales, possibly contributed to the

observed declines or slower than projected

potential recovery of the stock?

a. Whether the estimate of annual removals by

Alaska Native subsistence hunters in CI is

accurate? Is the CI Marine Mammal Council’s

report on 1998 harvest levels available?

b. Whether NOAA Fisheries has adequately

accounted for risks to the population from orca

predation, strandings, oil spills, and other

stochastic events in calculating potential

harvest removals and recovery times?

stock as threatened or endangered. Following NOAA

Fisheries’ notice of determination that listing the stock

was not warranted, Trustees amended its suit challenging the determination. The suit claimed that NOAA

Fisheries had acted in an arbitrary and capricious

manner in making the determination.

Limiting Subsistence Harvest

Section 101(b) of the MMPA provides an exemption to

Alaska Natives to take marine mammals for subsistence

purposes or for purposes of creating and selling

authentic Native articles of handicraft and clothing. This

exemption may be limited by Federal regulations if the

affected stock of marine mammals is designated as

depleted and NOAA Fisheries (or USFWS) follows notice

and hearing requirements under MMPA section 103.

After regulations are promulgated, they must be

removed as soon as the need for their imposition has

disappeared.

All parties that have been involved in CI beluga

conservation agree that the stock cannot continue to

support the level of harvest (estimated at over 70

whales per year) that occurred prior to 1999. NOAA

Fisheries and Alaska Native organizations have pursued

co-management agreements pursuant to section 119

of the MMPA as one mechanism to reduce the harvest.

As NOAA Fisheries and Alaska Natives negotiated

section 119 agreements, it became apparent that

enforceable regulations would also be required.

However, the process to limit subsistence harvest is long

and complicated, and the affected parties recognized

that immediate action was required to ensure that

over-harvest did not continue.

Congress aided the conservation effort in April 1999 by

providing a temporary requirement that the harvest of

CI beluga whales be conducted only under an

agreement pursuant to section 119 of the MMPA. That

legislation provided protection for the stock only until

October 1, 2000, when it was anticipated that a final

rule to regulate the harvest would be completed.

When it became apparent that harvest regulations

would not be final until after spring 2001, Congress

amended the April 1999 requirement for a comanagement agreement by removing the expiration

date; thus, the requirement for an agreement between

NOAA Fisheries and Alaska Native organizations to

authorize the harvest was made permanent.

NOAA Fisheries issued a Proposed Rule on October 4,

2000 (65 FR 59164), to regulate subsistence harvest of

CI beluga whales by Alaska Natives provided that:

1) Subsistence harvest can only occur under an

agreement between NOAA Fisheries and an

Alaska Native organization pursuant to section

119 of the MMPA
conservation and recovery page 20

legal mechanism to stop Native harvest of CI

beluga whales in the event of unrelated

mortality affecting the population recovery?

3) Should juvenile whales be taken instead of

mature adults if it is shown to enhance chances

of population recovery?

4) Should the proposed July 15 annual commencement date for Native harvest of beluga

whales be moved forward to July 1 in view of

deteriorating weather conditions?

D. Sale of CI Beluga Products

1) Whether the term “sale” should include barter

and other types of quasi-commercial

transactions?

2) Should attempts to sell CI beluga whale

products and/or foodstuff be deemed a

violation? Should the purchase and attempts

to purchase CI beluga whale products or

foodstuff be deemed a violation?

3) For enforcement purposes, should the

restriction on the sale of CI beluga whale

products and/or foodstuff be expanded to

prohibit the sale of products and/or foodstuff

from other beluga whale stock?

4) Should restrictions be in place for all CI beluga

whale products or just edible portions?

E. Cultural Interests

1) Are there ways to encourage full utilization of

belugas taken pursuant to the proposed

regulations?

2) Is there sufficient emphasis on the importance

of Native subsistence harvest in terms of

balancing in favor of permitting the proposed

harvest?

The hearing began on December 5, 2000, at the

Federal Court in Anchorage, Alaska. After the hearing,

the parties continued to discuss various alternatives for

harvest regulations to reach a consensus on a Final

Rule.

Co-management Agreement to Authorize Harvest

The special legislative provision that required a comanagement agreement to authorize a harvest of CI

beluga whales continued through 2000 to provide

protection to the stock. In 1999, no co-management

agreement was completed, and no CI beluga whales

were killed for subsistence purposes. In 2000, NOAA

Fisheries and the CI Marine Mammal Council negotiated an agreement that would have allowed the

Native Village of Tyonek to take a single whale to

continue the harvest tradition in that village. The village,

however, was not able to conduct a hunt in 2000.

Therefore, there were no harvest of CI beluga whales in

1999 or 2000 for subsistence purposes.

c. Is there an Inlet-based decline in the

availability of food or prey for the beluga? If so,

in what way has this affected the decline and

potential recovery of the population?

5) Whether a more flexible model that accounts

for uncertainty in key population parameters is

available? If so, why wasn’t it used?

6) What resources are available for monitoring

beluga population and harvest?

a. Will the beluga population be evaluated on

an annual basis?

b. Whether the regulations should contain a

provision for altering the number of Native

harvest strikes if new, valid information changes

the analysis of CI beluga population?

7) Should a more flexible harvest regime be

adopted? If so, what should it be?

B. Co-Management and Enforcement

1) What is the definition of the term “Alaska Native

Organization (ANO)?”

a. How is an ANO recognized?

b. Are there any ANOs in CI with area-wide

tribal authority to enforce laws against all

members of the area tribes and enter into

agreements on behalf of said tribes? How

many exist and who are they? Which ANO(s)

can enter into co-management agreement

with NOAA Fisheries?

2) What mechanisms are available to enforce the

Native harvest limitation and prohibition on the

sale of products and foodstuff from CI beluga

whales?

a. Who has authority to enforce the proposed

regulations, if adopted? Will enforcement

authority be shared between NOAA Fisheries

and the ANO(s)?

b. What effect, if any, does the recent ruling in

Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal

Government, 522 U.S. 520 (1998) have on a

tribal government’s ability to enforce tribal laws

on individuals?

c. How will the strikes under the proposed

regulation be allocated? Who will monitor the

harvest of CI beluga whales to ensure that the

season is concluded as soon as the second

strike has been made? How will the hunters and

tribes be notified of season’s closure?

3) Are there methods to increase efficiency?

4) Will there be sufficient funding for enforcement

and prosecution?

C. Method and Means of Hunting

1) Will illegal takings be counted against the twostrike Native harvest limit?

2) Will NOAA Fisheries be able to stop Native

harvest of CI beluga whales under emergency

circumstances by rule making? Will there be a
page 21 conservation and recovery

designation of the Northern right whale under the ESA,

specifically by designating an area within the Eastern

Bering Sea as critical habitat for Northern right whales in

the North Pacific. The petition was in review at the end

of 2000.

As it did in 1998, NOAA Fisheries provided support in

1999 and 2000 for aircraft and ship-based surveys to

help assess abundance, distribution, and stock identity

of the eastern North Pacific population. Support of this

work is expected to continue in 2001.

The focus of greatest conservation efforts is on the

Western North Atlantic population where there are

about 300 individuals. In the Western North Atlantic, right

whales occur seasonally in at least three areas along

the East Coast of the U.S. and two areas in Canada. The

principal and only known calving area for the population is along the coast of Northern Florida and Georgia.

This area is used almost exclusively from December to

March by females with newborn calves and some

juveniles. The other four known seasonal habitats are

feeding areas off New England and Southeastern

Canada. In spring, right whales regularly occur in Cape

Cod Bay and the Great South Channel off Massachusetts. Recognizing the importance of these areas to the

survival of this population, in 1994, NOAA Fisheries

designated these three areas as critical habitat.

Although no commercial hunting of right whales is

known to have occurred in the western North Atlantic

since at least the 1930s, other human activities are likely

slowing recovery. Both collisions with ships and

entanglement in fishing gear are documented causes

of death and serious injury in the population. From 1970

to December 2000, there have been 48 known right

whale deaths. Of these, 16 were from ship strikes, and

three from fishing gear entanglement. The cause(s) of

the remainder of the deaths is unknown, and a number

of deaths were neonates (newborns).

Numerous non-fatal fishing gear entanglements have

occurred in the last two decades. Since 1987 there

have been a total of 84 known large whale (fin,

humpback, minke, and right whales) entanglements. Of

these 20 were right whales; 38 were humpback whales;

nine fin whales; 12 minke whales; and five unidentified

large whales. Between 1997 and 2000, an average of

six known right whale entanglements have occurred

per year. Of the entanglements that occurred since

1987, 14 were fatal (1 right whale, 3 humpback whales,

3 fin whales, 6 minke whales, and 1 unidentified whale).

Unfortunately, 1999 was not a good year for right whale

deaths related to human activities. One right whale

died as a result of fishing gear entanglement, and one

died from a ship strike. A mature female right whale, 45

feet in length, was first observed severely entangled in

May 1999 off the coast of Massachusetts. The whale

was not seen again until early September, still severely

Northern Right Whale

The Northern right whale (Eubalaena glacialis and

Eubalaena japonica) occurs in both the North Atlantic

and North Pacific oceans and is the world's most

endangered large cetacean. Right whales were prized

by the whaling industry for the quality and quantity of

their oil. Slow swimming speeds and coastal distributions

made right whales easy prey and they were exploited

as early as the 11th century and the target of extensive

commercial hunting in the 1700 and 1800s. However,

by the late 1800s commercial harvest of Northern right

whales in both oceans was no longer economically

viable. Despite a ban on commercial harvest of right

whales by the International Whaling Commission in 1949,

and subsequent U.S. adoption of this ban, Northern right

whale populations have remained at precariously low

levels. The right whales, and all large whale species,

were listed as endangered under the ESA in 1970.

Four populations probably exist, or once existed: two

each in the North Atlantic and North Pacific oceans.

Recent genetic analysis strongly suggests divergence

of the North Atlantic right whale from the North Pacific

right whale. The authors of the analysis recommend a

separate species designation for the North Atlantic right

whale: Eubalaena glacialis; and the North Pacific right

whale: Eubalaena japonica.

The North Pacific stocks are little understood. Based on

available sighting data, the Eastern North Pacific

population of right whales may number only a few tens

of animals, while the Western North Pacfic population

may be somewhat larger with probable numbers in the

low hundreds. Sightings of the Eastern North Pacific

population over the past several decades have been

rare, but a small number of whales have been seen in

the South-Central Bering Sea each July since 1996.

(Goddard and Rugh, 1998) An increased search effort

in recent years has resulted in new information on

occurrence and distribution. Based on information from

these surveys, NOAA Fisheries received a petition

dated October 4, 2000 (received on October 13)

requesting that NOAA Fisheries raise the critical habitat

Northern right whale: Center for Coastal Studies
page 22 conservation and recovery

On a related matter, under the MMPA, NOAA Fisheries

is required to develop a List of Fisheries (LOF) that

classifies all U.S. commercial fisheries into one of three

categories based on the level of marine mammal

deaths and serious injuries that occur incidental to the

fishery. A notable change made to the 1997 LOF was

combining the New England inshore and offshore

lobster pot fisheries into one fishery, and a change in its

classification from a Category III (remote likelihood of

serious injury or mortality) to a Category I (frequent

serious injury or mortality) status. The re-classification

resulted from entanglement records indicating that 0.2

right whales per year are seriously injured or killed

incidental to the Atlantic lobster pot fishery, and

carries with it ramifications of potential additional

regulation, e.g., additional observer coverage and the

requirements to form a Take Reduction Team if total

human-related mortality exceeds PBR. Because of the

status of the right whale population, this level of impact

is considered significant. This classification was

continued by NOAA Fisheries in 1998, 1999, and 2000

and is expected to continue in 2001.

Efforts to Reduce Serious Injury from Fishing Gear

Entanglements

Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team and Plan

In August 1996, NOAA Fisheries formed the Atlantic

Large Whale Take Reduction Team (ALWTRT) to

address the incidental take of humpback (Megaptera

novaeangliae), fin (Balaenoptera physalus), minke

(Balaenoptera acutorostrata), and Northern right

whales in the Gulf of Maine/U.S. mid-Atlantic lobster

trap/pot fishery, the mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet fishery,

the Southeastern U.S. Atlantic shark gillnet fishery, and

the Gulf of Maine sink-gillnet fishery.

As indicated in previous annual reports, the ALWTRT

developed and submitted to NOAA Fisheries a nonconsensus take reduction plan in 1997. Based on the

plan, NOAA Fisheries issued a proposed rule in April

1997 and an interim final rule in July 1997 (62 FR 39157).

The provisions implemented were: (1) formation of a

fishing gear advisory group; (2) research on potential

fishing gear modification to determine ways to reduce

entanglement and facilitate the release of entangled

whales; (3) fishermen outreach and education

program; (4) expansion of the disentanglement

network; (5) hiring a large whale coordinator in Maine

(a state in which much of the gear restrictions were

opposed); (6) continuation and refinement of the

northeast U.S. aircraft survey program; and (7)

implementing some time/area closures and fishing

gear restrictions.

entangled. At that time, substantial efforts were made

to free her of the gear, and some of the gear was

removed but one line remained embedded in a large

wound on the whale’s back. The whale was found

dead five miles off Cape May, New Jersey on October

20, 1999. Injuries from the gear were fatal.

A second right whale died in 1999, the victim of a ship

strike. The whale, an adult female, was first spotted in

April 1999 off Wellfleet, Massachusetts in Cape Cod

Bay. The carcass was towed ashore and subsequent

analysis revealed the whale was a victim of a ship strike,

including blunt trauma and a broken jaw. There were

no known fatalities linked to human activities in 2000.

Given the threats posed by human activities and the

slow recovery of this population, NOAA Fisheries has

undertaken a number of actions to reduce adverse

effects from human activities and to facilitate recovery.

Recovery Plan Development and Revision

In 1991, NOAA Fisheries published the Recovery Plan for

the Northern Right Whale. The Recovery Plan identified

known and potential factors affecting the Northern

right whale in both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, and

provided research and conservation recommendations for reducing or eliminating adverse effects to the

species. NOAA Fisheries is updating the plan and

expects to issue a draft plan for public comment in

2001. Revised recovery actions will focus on attempts

to reduce adverse effects from human activities,

specifically, ship strikes and entanglement, as well as

identifying research and coordination efforts needed to

facilitate recovery of the population.

Revisions to Potential Biological Removal Rate and the

List of Fisheries

As noted in Chapter 1, the 1994 amendments to the

MMPA require NOAA Fisheries to prepare Stock

Assessment Reports that describe the status of each

marine mammal stock that occurs in U.S. waters. These

reports include an estimate of a potential biological

removal (PBR) level for stocks affected by fisheries. PBR

is “the maximum number of animals, not including

natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine

mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or

maintain its optimal sustainable population.” NOAA

Fisheries prepares the reports annually, and the 1996-

1999 reports the PBR for right whales was 0.4, or an

average of 4 whales killed in 10 years. However, a

significant change was made in 2000. NOAA Fisheries

revised the PBR from 0.4 for years prior to 2000 to zero

whales beginning in 2000. This change is important

because it essentially requires that no (zero) Western

North Atlantic right whales be killed.
conservation and recovery page 23

entanglement. With regard to lobster gear, the rule

required that: (1) buoy lines be as knot-free as possible

and the use of splices was encouraged in lieu of knots;

(2) multiple trap trawls only permitted (i.e., single trap

trawls prohibited); (3) gear clearly marked midway on

the buoy line; and (4) knotless weak links with a

breaking strength of 600 lbs required in some onshore

areas and knotless weak links at the buoy with a

breaking strength of 3750 lbs or less in certain offshore

areas. With regard to gillnet gear the rule required:

(1) knotless weak links at the buoy with a breaking

strength no greater than 1,100 lbs; (2) weak links in the

headrope at the center of each panel; (3) net strings

containing 20 net panels or less must be anchored

with one of three optional anchoring systems; and

(4) gear marking midway on the buoy line.

Another ALWTRT meeting is planned for June 2001 to

discuss possible further gear modifications, implementation of rapid response closures, and more permanent seasonal closures.

Northern right whale entangled in fishing gear:

Center for Coastal Studies

Disentanglement Response Program

Although a number of measures are in place or being

developed to reduce or eliminate this threat,

entanglement still occurs. As noted above, a number

of right whales are entangled in fishing gear each

year. Therefore, all reasonable efforts are made to

locate and free each entangled whale. Disentangling

a whale can be dangerous, so it is best undertaken by

trained and experienced personnel using predetermined procedures to ensure human safety, the

health and safety of the animal, and proper collection

of related data. In support and cooperation with a

number of organizations, NOAA Fisheries established a

disentanglement program that involves: (1) a multiagency and institution network to locate and monitor

entangled whales; (2) establishing equipment caches

in certain locations to facilitate rapid regional

response; (3) training of fishermen and disentanglement personnel to assist in disentanglement efforts;

and (4) providing updated status reports of recently

disentangled and currently entangled whales.

Each year since 1997, the ALWTRT has met at least once

annually to further refine the plan for reducing or

eliminating entanglement of large whales. In February

1999 the ALWTRT met in Danvers, Massachusetts to

assess and, if needed modify, the existing plan. NOAA

Fisheries representatives provided information

indicating that the entanglement of large whales had

continued since implementation of the plan in 1997 and

advised the ALWTRT that it was necessary to enhance

whale protection by modifying the plan. The ALWTRT

discussed a number of options and developed a

consensus Plan involving time/area closures for the

lobster gear and anchored gillnets; and required

changes in fishing gear or operations, which included a

general prohibition on the use of surface floating line in

any of these fisheries, a prohibition on storing inactive

gear at sea, and restrictions on setting shark gillnets off

the coasts of Georgia and Florida and drift gillnets in the

mid-Atlantic. On February 16, 1999, NOAA Fisheries

issued a Final Rule (64 FR 7529) that implemented those

recommendations. The plan implemented by NOAA

Fisheries also included a number of non-regulatory

measures, including an accelerated program of

research on possible gear modifications to reduce

entanglement; public outreach; developing a network

to inform fishermen when right whales were in a

particular area; and enhancing efforts to disentangle

whales.

However, concerns were raised about the inadequacy

of the gear marking requirements (i.e., the system had

flaws that would not allow the reliable tracing of gear to

a particular fishery or region). As a result, NOAA

Fisheries published a rule on April 9, 1999 (64 FR 17292)

removing the gear marking regulations until November

1, 1999, or until a better system was designed. On

December 30, 1999 NOAA Fisheries extended the

suspension until November 1, 2000 because a better

system had not been designed. On November 22, 2000

a final rule was published removing gear marking until a

new gear marking program could be implemented.

In July and August 1999, observers and mid-Atlantic

subgroups (respectively) met and decided on

additional measures specific to these areas. The

Southeast subgroup agreed to allow the Vessel

Monitoring System (VMS) as an alternative to the existing

100% observer coverage requirement and to prohibit

night time straight sets of non-shark gillnet fisheries. The

mid-Atlantic subgroup agreed on a number of gillnet

and pot gear modifications largely consistent with

previous team recommendations for Northeast

fisheries. The Northeast subgroup met in Danvers,

Massachusetts in April and May 2000. Additional fishing

gear modifications were discussed as was the possibility

of rapid response fishing closures linked to right whale

occurrence and density. Based on these discussions,

NOAA Fisheries issued an interim final rule on December

21, 2000 (65 FR 80368) setting forth a new set of

requirements to reduce the likelihood of serious
conservation and recovery page 24

Aircraft and Vessel Based Surveys for Western North

Atlantic Right Whales

To help reduce the likelihood of ship strikes, a multiagency team designed and conducted aircraft

surveys that transect key Northern right whale feeding

and calving areas when the animals are expected to

be present. Systematic surveys have been used in

right whale habitat over waters off the Southeast U.S.

since 1993, and since early 1997 in the Northeast U.S.

The primary objectives of these surveys are to:

(1) locate right whales and to provide the sighting

information to mariners in the area, and (2) photograph right whales with high-resolution cameras for the

purpose of photo- identification and evidence of

interaction with fishing gear or ships.

Due to concern over potential collisions between right

whales and hopper dredges operating in designated

critical habitat for right whales in Southeast waters,

monitoring requirements were placed on the Army

Corps of Engineers (Corps) and resulted, in the 1980s,

in the first regular aerial survey flights for right whales in

waters off the Southeast U.S. These surveys evolved

over the years and, by late 1993/early 1994, were

officially sponsored by NOAA Fisheries, the USCG, USN,

and the Corps, and became known as the Early

Warning System (EWS). The surveys were designed as

daily reconnaissance flights to detect the presence of

whales in and around a number of busy Southeast

shipping ports, USN vessel and submarine bases, and

the Corps dredging sites, in order to alert vessels of the

whales’ presence and prevent potential whale/vessel

collisions. The EWS, with the assistance of the USN and

USCG, has evolved a sophisticated communication

network which alerts not only dredges and military

vessels in the area, but provides broadcasts to

mariners via NAVTEX, NOAA Weather Radio, and other

means, and even contacts vessels directly via radio

when urgently necessary to prevent imminent collision.

Using the SEUS aircraft survey program as a model,

efforts were initiated in 1997 to develop a similar

program in the Cape Cod Bay and the Great South

Channel in late winter and early spring. The program is

a cooperative effort by NOAA Fisheries, the USCG,

Massachusetts Division of Fisheries, the Massachusetts

Environmental Trust, the Center for Coastal Studies, the

USN and the Boston port authority (MASSPORT). As a

result of recommendations by the Recovery Plan

Implementation Team, a similar EWS, known as the

"Sighting Advisory System," was established in the

Northeast in late 1996. Through a fax-on-demand

system, mariners and fishermen can obtain sighting

reports and, in some cases, can make necessary

adjustments in shipping or fishing operations to

decrease the potential for interactions. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts was a key collaborator

The disentanglement program is administered by the

Center for Coastal Studies (CCS) through funding and

authorization by NOAA Fisheries and with vital support

from a variety of other organizations. The program

consists of one primary CCS-lead team and field station

support in the Northern Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy,

Central Maine, Southern Gulf of Maine, Cape Hatera,

North Carolina and Georgia/Florida. Participating

organizations include NOAA Fisheries, the Canadian

Whale Emergency Network, Canadian Coast Guard,

Massachusetts Department of Fisheries, the New

England Aquarium, the International Fund for Animal

Welfare, the Maine Volunteer Fishermens Network,

Maine Marine Patrol, Virginia Marine Science Museum,

Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Duke

University Marine Laboratory, and others. The U.S. Coast

Guard (USGC) serves a central role in disentanglement

efforts and has provided logistical (e.g., transporting

personnel), communication, and safety components to

virtually every disentanglement event on the Atlantic

coast.

In 1999 and 2000, important strides were made in

developing and implementing a systematic program to

train fishermen in reporting entanglements and assisting

in disentanglement efforts. Volunteer Maine fishermen

were the first to receive training in a pilot program

primarily in 1998 and 1999. Subsequently, CCS has

provided training and outreach presentations for

fishermen, mariners and biologists in 1999 and 2000 in

numerous locations along the U.S. East coast. Also,

preparedness for disentanglement efforts was greatly

enhanced by establishing strategic placement of "first

responder kits" and "full caches" of equipment from

Canada to Florida. In this same period, the ability to

track and monitor entangled whales was improved by

starting the practice of attaching a satellite telemetry

device to the gear, thereby enhancing the opportunity

to locate the animal and make further attempts at

disentanglement. In addition, NOAA Fisheries established a program to assess any gear removed from the

whale to determine gear type and characteristics to

help improve fisheries management efforts.

Further information about this program, including

regular updates of currently entangled whales can be

found at the CCS website:

http://www.coastalstudies.org/rescue/index.htm.

Steps Taken to Reduce the Level of Ship Strike Deaths

In the last several years, NOAA Fisheries has devoted

considerable effort to educating the shipping industry

and others about the vulnerability of right whales to ship

strikes in an effort to reduce the probability of ship

strikes. As noted earlier, impacts from human activities

are likely slowing the recovery of this population, and

death and injury from collisions with ships are likely a

contributing factor.
conservation and recovery page 25

well as the first systematic surveys flown over waters

off the mid-Atlantic states.

Vessel based surveys to locate and photograph right

whales were also conducted in 1999 and 2000 and

are expected to continue in 2001. These include

surveys to help assess right whale distribution and

relative abundance, to gather photo-identification

data, and to provide sighting information to the

mariner warning system. NOAA Fisheries supported

extensive vessel surveys throughout right whale

habitat in the last two years, and NOAA vessels have

supported numerous right whale related studies.

Developing a Mandatory Ship Reporting System

In late 1997 and early 1998, NOAA, NOAA Fisheries,

National Ocean Service, USCG, Marine Mammal

Commission (MMC), and the International Fund for

Animal Welfare began jointly developing a proposal

for submission to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) requesting implementation of a mandatory

ship reporting system in right whale habitats.

The proposal received endorsement from the USCG,

the MMC, and other agencies and organizations. It

was presented by the USCG, on behalf of the U.S., to

the IMO’s Subcommittee on Safety of Navigation in

July 1998 in London, and subsequently transmitted to

the overseeing Committee on Marine Safety.

Following the Committee’s review, the proposal

received IMO approval in December 1998. In early

1999, NOAA Fisheries worked with USCG personnel

and a contractor to design the satellite-linked

communication system and to help develop

implementing regulations. The system began operation

in July 1999. NOAA Fisheries and the USCG share the

cost of operating the system, and there is no cost to

the mariner, and, other than reporting, the system

makes no other requirements of the mariner.

Under the system, all ships greater than 300 tons

entering essential right whale habitat are obligated to

report location, speed, and destination to a shorebased station. In return, all reporting ships receive a

message describing the status, distribution, and

behavior of right whales, as well as sighting locations.

The return message also indicates that mariners should

not assume that whales will avoid oncoming vessels

and that lookouts be alert for right whales, that

mariners should listen for broadcasts reporting recent

right whale sighting locations, and advise that reduced

speeds be used when near whales or traveling in

critical habitats or during conditions of poor visibility. A

portion of the system, which encompasses the right

whale critical habitats in Cape Cod Bay and the Great

South Channel, operates year round. A second

portion includes right whale critical habitat off the

Southeat U.S. and operates from 15 November to 15

April.

in the 1996-1997 effort and expanded the effort during

the 1997-1998 season. The USCG has played a key role

in this effort, providing both air and sea support. The

State of Maine and the Canada Department of

Fisheries and Oceans have expressed interest in

conducting this type of EWS along their coastal waters.

It is expected that other potential sources of sightings

such as the USN may contribute to this effort. The

NOAA Fisheries Maine ALWTRP Coordinator is also

working with local aquaria to collect whale sightings

from fishing vessels in the Gulf of Maine.

In the Northeast U.S., the primary source of information

for the sighting network is dedicated aerial surveys

conducted by NOAA Fisheries and the state of

Massachusetts in the two critical habitat areas and

beyond. Surveys are done each year from January to

the end of June. Additional sighting information sources

which contribute throughout the calendar year are

primarily opportunistic and include USCG aircraft and

ships, ship-based sightings by several research

organizations during their studies of right whales (Center

for Coastal Studies, Woods Hole Oceanographic

Institution, International Wildlife Coalition), research

vessels operated by NOAA Fisheries, the Northeast

Region Stranding Network, whale watch vessels, and a

high speed ferry. Sighting locations are processed,

disseminated, and faxed by the NOAA Fisheries

Northeast Regional Office to a wide distribution network

that includes federal and state agencies, shipping

agents and pilots, and right whale researchers. Right

whale locations are broadcast to ships and other

maritime users for a 24-hour period via USCG Broadcast

Notice to Mariners, NAVTEX, alerts on NOAA Weather

Radio, and Army Corps of Engineers Traffic Controllers

at Cape Cod Canal. Maps with right whale sightings are

updated and posted on the Wheelock College

WHALENET web site at: whale.wheelock.edu/whalenetstuff/reportsRW_NE/. Sighting information can also be

found at the NOAA Fisheries Northeast Region,

Northeast Fisheries Science Center and the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs web sites.

A NOAA Fisheries Inquiry Line (telephone) also provides

right whale sighting information and sends facsimiles of

the sighting maps to interested callers.

The aircraft survey program is a cooperative effort by

NOAA Fisheries, NOAA’s Weather Service, USCG, USN,

the Corps, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the

states of Georgia and Florida, Wheelock College,

Massachusetts Environmental Trust, CCS, the New

England Aquarium, NOAA’s Stellwagen Bank National

Marine Sanctuary, Massachusetts Port Authority, and

Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport,

Rhode Island.

In addition, NOAA Fisheries provided support in 1999

and 2000 for aircraft surveys in the Southeast U.S.

offshore of those typically being conducted over

critical habitat by the states of Georgia and Florida, as
conservation and recovery page 26

both publications contain regularly updated information

the vulnerability of right whales to ship strikes and

precautionary measures mariners can take to avoid

ship strikes.

The Safety of Life at Sea Convention-driven International Safety Management Code requires vessel

companies and owners to develop procedures for

safety of passengers and vessels at sea, which includes

environmental protection measures and protocols. In

late 1998 and early 1999, NOAA Fisheries worked with

the USCG to ensure that the implementing regulations

and protocol include information regarding vessel

operation that is consistent with protective measures for

right whales and other protected marine species. The

USCG agreed with the NOAA Fisheries recommendations and has incorporated this information into relevant

regulations. Therefore, domestic vessels entering U.S.

ports will be required to have vessel operation plans

that include precautionary measures for right whales.

Educational Materials and Outreach

A number of agencies and organizations have

collaborated on developing and distributing brochures,

pamphlets, and informational papers to educate

mariners about the vulnerability of right whales to ship

strikes. These are being distributed by the USCG when

ships make port calls, and by NOAA Fisheries to port

authorities and pilot’s associations and at a variety of

regional meetings. In an effort led by the International

Fund for Animal Welfare and with partial support by

NOAA Fisheries, a brief video was developed in 1999 for

mariners, which includes information on the seasonal

distribution of right whales.

Further Management Options

In 2000, NOAA Fisheries provided a contract with JS&A

Environmental Services, Inc. to identify and assess

management options to reduce the risk of ship strikes.

By mid 2000, the contractor had prepared a draft

discussion paper. A number of meetings and workshops

were then held with shipping industry representatives to

discuss the paper and options for reducing ship strikes.

A final report to NOAA Fisheries is expected to be

completed in 2001. The report is expected to include

recommendations regarding ship routing measures and

the possibly of slowing of ships in certain locations.

Regional Recovery Plan Implementation Teams

The ESA provides authority to the Secretary of

Commerce (i.e., NOAA Fisheries) to establish teams to

assist in implementing recovery plans by reviewing

recovery activities and providing recommendations on

improving such activities. As noted in previous annual

In 2000, NOAA Fisheries and contractor, the Florida

Marine Research Institute, began analysis of incoming

messages from ships (e.g., ship destination, speed, and

point of entry into the system) to assess ship volume,

patterns, and speed in critical habitat. A report of this

analysis is expected to be completed in 2001 and will

likely help facilitate development of further ship

management options to reduce ship strikes.

Thus, the system serves to provide warnings to mariners

entering areas of right whale occurrence about the

presence of whale, raises the awareness of the industry

about the vulnerability of right whales to ship strikes and

provides data for further assessment and development

of options to reduce ship strikes. Design and operation

of the system has been a multi- organization effort,

involving government and non-government organizations.

Updating Nautical Charts and Other Navigational

Publications, and the International Safety Management

Code

To help ensure safe navigation in coastal waters of the

U.S., NOAA's National Ocean Service (NOS) periodically

publishes and updates nautical charts. NOS also issues a

series of regional books called Coast Pilots which are

basic references on navigation hazards and rules, and

regional environmental conditions. In U.S. waters, all

ship’s captains are required to carry the Coast Pilots.

NOAA Fisheries, NOS, and others have worked closely

to update information printed on nautical charts and in

Coast Pilots regarding right whale critical habitat and

regulations about approaching right whales and other

protected marine species. Coast Pilots covering waters

off the entire Eastern U.S. have been or will be updated

to include information on the status of right whales, the

threats posed to whales by ships, and measures

mariners might take to avoid hitting right whales.

Nautical charts are being updated on a schedule set

forth by NOS.

In 1998, NOAA Fisheries contacted the National

Imagery and Mapping Agency’s (NIMA) (formerly the

Defense Mapping Agency) to request that its maritime

publications be revised to include information on right

whales and other endangered marine species. NIMA

obliged and its publication, Notice to Mariners, now

includes information on right whales and marine turtles.

Working with NIMA, NOAA Fisheries updates the

information annually. A similar request was made by

NOAA Fisheries in 1999 regarding NIMA’s Sailing

Directions, which is prepared primarily for U.S. mariners

sailing into international waters. Working with counterparts in Canada, NOAA Fisheries prepared information

on right whales and precautionary measures for

mariners for inclusion in Sailing Directions. As a result,
conservation and recovery page 27

The SEIT has met regularly since being established and,

among other things, has worked to develop and

implement a system of aircraft surveys to detect and

report the locations of right whales to mariners

involving survey work, described above. The surveys

are jointly funded by NOAA Fisheries, the USCG, USN,

and the Corps. Members of the SEIT have also

implemented a multi-agency effort to provide a local

Notice to Mariners broadcast about right whale

calving grounds which is broadcast four times daily by

the USCG on VHF radio. The SEIT also makes recommendations to NOAA Fisheries and other agencies

regarding right whale research and measures to

reduce the possibility of ship strikes, and restrictions of

hazardous fishing gear in right whale calving areas.

The SEIT established a GIS subcommittee in the late

1990s and is progressing with work to analyze right

whale sightings, vessel traffic information, and

pertinent environmental data to better understand

right whale distribution patterns in southeast waters

and ultimately prevent human interactions with these

whales. Through the SEIT and NOAA Fisheries annual

support, the Right Whale Newsletter is published

quarterly as a source of news, updates, and lists of

recent publications for the right whale community.

Interagency Consultation Under the Endangered

Species Act

Section 7 of the ESA mandates that federal agencies

ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry

out is:

“not likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of any endangered species or threatened

species or result in the destruction or adverse

modification of critical habitat of such species...”

Federal agencies comply with this requirement

through interagency consultations that involve NOAA

Fisheries, the USFWS, or both, depending on the

species affected by the action. Interagency

consultations involve procedures that are designed to

identify the intended and unintended consequences

of a federal agency’s action; federal actions that are

likely to adversely affect listed species or designated

critical habitat undergo more rigorous evaluations that

conclude with a “biological opinion (BO).” If the

activity is likely to “jeopardize,” then a “jeopardy”

determination is issued. If not, then a “non-jeopardy”

determination is made. A considerable amount of the

recovery activities for all endangered and threatened

species are implemented through consultations

between NOAA Fisheries and other federal agencies.

As a result of these consultations, NOAA Fisheries issues

a BO on the activity, which indicates whether the

activity is likely to jeopardize the continued existence

of the species throughout all or a portion of its range,

reports, NOAA Fisheries established two such teams,

one in the Southeastern U.S. and one in the Northeastern U.S., to address the known impacts to right and

humpback whales described in the Recovery Plans.

The Implementation Teams provide advice to NOAA

Fisheries and other federal and state agencies or

private entities on achieving these national goals within

their respective regions. The teams both agreed to

focus primarily on habitat and vessel related issues and

rely on the take reduction plan process under the

MMPA for reducing takes in commercial fisheries.

As part of Northeast Implementation Team (NEIT)

activities, a Ship Strike Workshop was held in December

1996 to inform the shipping community of their need to

participate in efforts to reduce the impacts of

commercial vessel traffic on right whales. The

workshop summarized current research efforts using

new shipboard and moored technologies as deterrents, and a report was given on ship design studies

currently being conducted by the New England

Aquarium and Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

This workshop increased awareness among the

shipping community and has further contributed to

reducing the threat of ship strikes of right whales. In

addition, a Cape Cod Canal Tide Chart that included

information on critical habitat areas and the need for

close watch during peak right whale activity was

distributed widely to professional mariners and ships

passing through the canal.

In 1999 and 2000, as in previous years, the team met

regularly and provided recommendations or guidance

to NOAA Fisheries and other agencies with regard to

restricting hazardous fishing gear in right whale habitats,

disentangling whales caught in fishing gear, plans for

constructing a sewage outfall tunnel in Massachusetts

Bay, and dredge disposal activities in Massachusetts

Bay. The team and its participating agencies have also

had important roles in the aircraft survey and communication system described above, as well as in the

recovery of stranded or dead floating whales. In

response to current needs, the NEIT reconfigured its ship

strike subcommittee to address these impacts on a

more formal basis.

The Southeastern U.S. Implementation Team (SEIT) was

established in August 1993. It currently consists of

representatives from the Georgia Department of

Natural Resources, the Florida Department of

Environmental Protection, NOAA Fisheries Southeast

Fisheries Science Center and Southeast Regional

Office, USN, MMC, Georgia Ports Authority, Canaveral

Port Authority, Glynn County Commission, Glynn County,

Georgia, University of Georgia, the Corps, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Port of Fernandina,

Fernandina, Florida, the US CG, and the Jacksonville

Port Authority.
conservation and recovery page 28

mariners, operation of the Mandatory Ship Reporting

system and analysis of data from the system, enforcement of fishing regulations, and vessel surveys for

population assessment, NOAA Fisheries supported a

number of right whale research and data curation

activities in 1999 and 2000. A brief description of these

activities follows.

Fishing Gear Modifications to Reduce Entanglement

As noted above in the section on the Atlantic Large

Whale Take Reduction Plan, right whale entanglement in

fishing gear is a significant threat to right whale recovery.

As in previous years, NOAA Fisheries provided substantial

support of research in 1999 and 2000 on fishing gear

modifications aimed at reducing the likelihood that a

whale will become entangled or improving the likelihood

that an entangled whale could free itself. Work in this

regard began in 1997, continued through 2000, and will

be ongoing in 2001. A number of possible modifications

have been identified and previously developed devices

were field tested in actual fishing operations throughout

the region in 1999 and 2000. As in previous years, the

focus of this work is to involve the fishermen in the

development, testing, and implementation of modifications found to be effective. Specifically, the program

involved developing biodegradable rope; providing

grants to fishermen for mini-projects; developing gear to

test disentanglement forces; development of timedrelease device; determining the theoretical pulling

forces of an entangled whale; testing various weak links

to facilitate a whale freeing itself; and acoustical release

feasibility studies. The results of this ongoing research is

the subject of discussion by the ALWTRT, and is one of the

centerpieces of the plan and ongoing efforts to reduce

entanglement (work conducted by Northeast Regional

Office and various contractors).

Photo-Identification and Sighting Data Bases

Photo-identification of individual whales is perhaps one

of the best ways to monitor trends in North Atlantic right

whale abundance and demography. Photographic

data, and associated sighting data, provide information

on individual longevity and social interactions, habitat

use, calving history, and movements and migrations.

Ongoing analysis of these data and collection of new

photos is central to a range of right whale science and

management goals. Long-term sighting and photoidentification databases are currently maintained, newly

collected information is added cumulatively, and data

products and analyses are provided to collaborating

investigators. As in the past, in 1999 and 2000, NOAA

Fisheries supported photo-identification studies and

supported ongoing maintenance and curation of the

database of right whale sightings. (New England

Aquarium)

and provides reasonable and prudent alternatives to

the activity. The ESA also requires re-initiation of

consultation if new information reveals that listed

species or critical habitat may be affected in a manner,

or to an extent, not previously considered.

In the last several years, NOAA Fisheries has conducted

consultations on the activities of a number of U.S.

fisheries and ship operations by federal agencies that

have resulted in modifications of fishing operations and

vessel operating procedures. Recent consultations

include BOs on: (1) USCG vessel operations and other

activities in 1995 and 1996; (2) USN activities in 1997; (3)

the American Lobster Fishery in 1996; (4) the Northeast

Multispecies Groundfish Fishery in 1996; and (5) the

Atlantic Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species in 1997. In

2000, NOAA Fisheries requested re-initiation of Section 7

consultations on the Multi-species, Monkfish, Spiny

Dogfish, and American Lobster Fisheries Management

Plans. These requests were made in light of several right

whale entanglements in 1999. NOAA Fisheries cited

new information provided by the International Whaling

Commission regarding modeling results that the

Western North Atlantic right whale population may be

declining. The BOs resulting from these consultations will

be issued in 2001.

NOAA Fisheries-Supported Research Activities

Right whale research and management activities within

NOAA Fisheries have been funded by Congress since

1986. Initial appropriations totaled $500,000 in FY1986,

and $200,00-$250,000 annually for FY1987-1997.

Congressional funding for right whales increased to

$350,000 in FY1998, and NOAA Fisheries supplemented

this level to total of about $1.0 million. In FY1999,

appropriations increased to $1.0 million and NOAA

Fisheries supplemented this to a total of about $1.4

million. In FY2000 the appropriated amount increased

substantially to $4.1 million.

In addition to supporting or implementing a number of

recovery actions discussed above such as aircraft

surveys to provide right whale sighting locations to
conservation and recovery page 29

In 1999 and again in 2000, NOAA Fisheries provided

support for VHF-radio tracking studies of right whales in

the Southeast U.S. critical habitat. The purpose was to

provide data for evaluation of the size of Florida/

Georgia calving ground critical habitat, further

quantify dive time characteristics, further assess the

probability that an individual would be sighted by an

observer on a ship or aircraft, and where possible,

provide individual whale sighting locations to transiting

ships. Pilot field studies were initiated in 1999 to assess

right whale fine-scale movements and submergence

times. The goal was to expand this study in Southeast

U.S. waters in 2000 by using implantable tags.

Unfortunately and unexpectedly, very few whales

occurred in these waters in winter/spring 2000, one of

the lowest calving years on record, and no tags were

deployed. (SEFSC)

In conjunction with the USN's Office of Naval Research,

NOAA Fisheries supported a large scale satellite

tagging program in 2000. The tags can remain on the

whale for up to several months and the goal was to

attach tags on whales leaving summer/fall feeding

grounds and to track movements for as long as

possible. In addition, concurrent assessment of

oceanographic parameters and prey density and

distribution were collected to help quantify environmental factors that dictate right whale occurrence

and distribution. Such data are vital to understanding

habitat use and will provide important information to

predictive modeling exercises (see below), which will

help in identifying actions aimed at reducing impacts

from the fishing and shipping industries. In summer

2000 a total of 16 tags were attached and those

tagged whales were tracked for a total of 396 days.

One whale, an adult female, was tracked for 130 days

throughout waters off New England and then to the

Southeast U.S. calving ground. Whale locations were

provided to the NOAA Fisheries Sighting Advisory

System to be relayed to mariners in the vicinity.

Oceanographic data, including right whale prey

distribution data, were collected throughout the Bay

of Fundy and Scotian Shelf. Two whales tagged had

not previously been seen or photographed and these

whales ranged widely. While results were promising, a

technical problem with the tag’s antenna prevented

collection of further data. (Oregon State)

NOAA Fisheries also provided funding for a study of

right whale behavior using acoustic tags and time

depth recorders. The tag collects a variety of data,

including three-dimensional orientation and movement of the whale and dive depth. The tag also

records ambient noise and provides critical information on what the right whale is hearing as it responds

(or does not respond) to sounds of approaching ships.

The tag was successfully tested in 1999 and deployed

in a series of playback and other experiments in the

Bay of Fundy in summer 2000. This work will continue in

2001. (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute)

As noted above, NOAA Fisheries and other agencies

support aircraft surveys for right whales, primarily to

reduce the likelihood of ship strikes by identifying whale

locations for ships. These surveys also provide individual

whale photo-identifications. Each year, photos from the

program and its numerous partners, as well as those

provided by field researchers, collectively contribute a

substantial amount of information to he photoidentification data.

As with the photo catalog, the North Atlantic Right

Whale Sighting Database represents an essential

resource that underpins much of the fundamental

analysis of this population. The data base includes

archival right whale sighting records, and new sighting is

provided from all sources. Funding for continued

maintenance of the database as well as for production

of a much-needed sightings-per-unit-effort analysis of

existing data therein was provided in 1999 and 2000.

(University of Rhode Island)

Satellite Tracking, VHF Radio Tracking, and Acoustic

Tagging Studies

There is a general lack of information on where a

substantial portion of the Western North Atlantic

population over-winters. Also, information about habitat

use and specific behavior in certain areas is incomplete. In addition, little is known about whale reactions

to oncoming ships and why the species is vulnerable to

collisions with ships. In the last two decades, tools have

been developed to help address these and other basic

questions about large whale movement, migrations,

habitat use, and behavior. These include devices

attached to whales and other marine mammals that

include satellite tags, very high-frequency (VHF) radio

tags, time-depth recorders, and acoustic tags. Satellite

tags provide information on whale locations mediated

through satellites and can help assess long distance

movements. VHF radio tags are typically tracked from a

ship or aircraft, have short range (e.g., kilometers or

tens of kilometers) and provide relatively fine scale

movement (e.g., habitat use), information on dive times,

and surface behavior, and have the advantage of

providing location data around the clock when visual

studies are not possible. Time depth recorders provide

a record of whale movement and behavior while at

depth, and can provide insight about reaction to

human stimuli and environmental features. Recently

developed acoustic recording tags have been

coupled with time depth recorders to provide

information on sound signals produced and received

by a tagged whale. These are generally short duration

benign tags (attached with a suction cup) that can be

used to assess a whale's reaction to various sound

sources. In response to basic uncertainties about

whale behavior and biology and given refinement of

tools to address them, NOAA Fisheries supported a

number of studies utilizing these tools.
conservation and recovery page 30

data to re-evaluate the boundaries of the right whale

critical habitat, evaluate re-sightings of known right

whales for site fidelity, and other factors influencing

habitat use, and analyze whale habitat use patterns in

relation to physical and biological variables such as sea

surface temperature. Ultimately, these data will be used

to perform risk analyses to aid decision makers in

determining how best to protect right whales in U.S.

waters. (Florida Marine Research Institute and the SER)

Genetic Analysis

Genetic analyses have been underway since 1988 to

determine or clarify information on taxonomy, matrilines,

genealogies, and habitat-use patterns of right whales.

These analyses, including those supported in 1998, 1999,

and 2000 are helping to provide insights into stock

definition and genetic variability within a stock. The

goals of this research are to: assess the population’s

genetic variability, identify the number of reproductive

animals and their reproductive status, identify social

units and individual association patterns in each habitat

area, better understand mating relationships, identify

matrilines, and determine the degree of inbreeding,

population viability, and other factors essential to

management. Recent scientific investigations have

compared the genetic variability of northern and

southern right whales, and found the former to be

significantly less diverse. (CCS)

Whale Conservation Fund

Efforts by the MMC led to creation of the National

Large Whale Conservation Fund, a trust administered

by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF)

through which research on endangered large whales

could be supported. The goal is to establish a trust,

supported by public and private funds, through which

research and conservation work can by supported. In

2000, NOAA Fisheries transferred funds to NFWF to

establish the fund and begin initial fundraising.

Reproductive Anomalies and Health Assessment

Although anthropogenic mortality and serious injury

from entanglements and ship strikes almost certainly

inhibit recovery of right whales, there is increasing

evidence that intrinsic biological problems also exist. In

particular, some studies suggest that the reproductive

rate of this population has declined in the last decade.

Research into the possible causes of this reproductive

failure is needed and NOAA Fisheries turned attention

to addressing this need.

Addressing the issue of biological problems and

diminished reproduction is potentially complex, and

requires input and assessment from scientists with a

broad range of expertise and accomplished individuals

in the relevant disciplines. To this end, a workshop of

international experts was held in April 2000 in Falmouth,

Massachusetts. A draft workshop report, which

Detecting Whales at Sea

It is possible that the risk of ship strikes could be reduced

if ways were found to improve detection of whales at

sea. A number of techniques are being studied to

assess their feasibility and capabilities of detecting

whales. Among these are: 1) “active acoustics”; 2)

“passive acoustics”; and 3) enhanced visual detection.

Active acoustic studies use SONAR or sound producing

devices that identifies an entity in the water based on

the returning echo. In 2000, NOAA Fisheries provided

funding for a pilot study of an active acoustic sensing

device. This work is ongoing and the device is being

refined. Similarly, studies were funded of passive

acoustic devices “that is, listening devices used to

detect and locate whales based on the vocalizations

they emit." Finally, NOAA Fisheries supported work in

2000 to study the feasibility of using an infrared video

device to detect whales at the surface based on heat

emitted from the animal’s body or contained in its

exhalation. (NEFSC, SEFSC and UNC, Wilmington)

Predictive Modeling

As noted in the previous annual report, NOAA Fisheries

convened a workshop in October, 1998 in Woods Hole,

Massachusetts to evaluate the possibility of predicting

right whale occurrence based on environmental data,

and to do this with sufficient reliability to be of use in

improving research and management of the species.

The workshop concluded that given certain measurable environmental features (e.g., prey distribution and

oceanographic factors that influence prey distribution),

it may be possible to assess where right whales are likely

to occur. If so, reduction of adverse effects from

human activities may be enhanced. In 1999 and again

in 2000, NOAA Fisheries provided support of studies to

examine correlations between right whale distribution

and environmental data (notably on sea surface

temperature). Development of such a system or a

related one would be extremely useful in crafting and

implementing management measures to mitigate

human-related conflicts. (University of Massachusetts)

GIS Analyses

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) may be one of

the most important tools for providing descriptions of

right whale distribution — particularly relative to

environmental features assessing critical habitat

boundaries, and other analyses. In 1999 and 2000 funds

were provided to construct and maintain a right whale

GIS. An important focus will be the development of a

predictive model of right whale habitat use and

movements to determine where right whales would

most likely occur in a given period. The GIS would

complement existing and ongoing right whale research

by building and maintaining right whale specific and

ancillary environmental spatial data sets, compiling

data on vessel traffic from aerial surveys and the

Mandatory Ship Reporting system; and analyzing these
conservation and recovery page 31

on reproduction. (Body condition studies were

administered through the Woods Hole Oceanographic

Institution including sample collection by the New

England Aquarium).

Stress Analysis. The Southwest Fisheries Science Center

has developed assays to measure hormones

indicative of stress, both long-term (e.g., nutritional)

and short-term (e.g., disturbance), in cetaceans. The

assay can be used on a relatively small skin sample,

and has been used to assess stress levels in dolphins in

the Eastern Tropical Pacific and Alaskan beluga

whales. The assay was applied to right whales in a

small-scale study to determine feasibility of assessing

stress levels in right whales. (SWFSC)

Size From Photogrammetry. One of the critical life

history variables for which few or no data exist is body

length. Measuring whales at sea using stereoscopic

cameras (i.e., photogrammetry) allows determination

of size structure of the population and provides

qualitative measures of individual health and

presence/absence of pregnancy in a particular

individual. An aerial-based photogrammetric system

developed for bowhead, Northern right, and blue

whales by the Southwest and Alaska Fisheries Science

Center was used in the Bay of Fundy in summer 2000.

Several hundred photographs were taken, tens of

whales were measured and many more photoidentified. (Aircraft survey contracts by NEFSC and

technical expertise from the SWFSC and AFSC).

Summary

Much work is needed to recover severely depleted

right whale populations. Congressional appropriations

for a right whale recovery program have steadily

increased in the last several years. NOAA Fisheries has

responded by building a program that focuses

primarily on reducing threats to the population from

human activities. The program has also initiated

assessments of individual health and population

reproductive anomalies, and supports gathering data

and maintaining data bases on basic population

abundance, status, demographics, and distribution.

includes a recommended research program, was

prepared and submitted to the International Whaling

Commission. In addition to NOAA Fisheries support and

technical expertise, the workshop was supported by

the International Whaling Commission, the International

Fund for Animal Welfare, and the Island Foundation.

Based, in part on workshop results, a number of right

whale reproduction and health studies were supported

by NOAA Fisheries in 1999 and 2000 described below.

Reproductive endocrinology. Reproductive problems

could involve males, females or both genders. In

females, abnormally low reproductive rates may be

due to reduced fecundity, spontaneous abortion or

unrecorded neonatal mortality; therefore, determination of the true pregnancy rate is of particular

importance to discriminate among these possible

scenarios. Pregnancy determination is possible through

hormone analysis; this is usually accomplished by

analysis of blood samples, a technique which is

impractical in large whales. Recently, techniques have

been developed which allow endocrinological assays

(measuring the metabolites of reproductive hormones)

to be conducted from fecal matter by radioimmunoassay. This material can certainly be obtained from right

whales on an opportunistic basis. Assessment of the use

of blubber samples for the same purpose is also

possible. Hormone analysis should also involve males

since, in other wildlife species, evidence of endocrine

disruption is most frequently found in this gender. Male

hormone cycles have less natural variability than those

of females, and may be easier to assess for comparative purposes. (New England Aquarium).

Health assessment and multivariate analysis. Observations of North Atlantic right whales have led a number

of scientists to the qualitative assessment that some

individuals in this population appear to be in questionable health. In particular, observations of skin lesions

have become much more frequent in recent years.

Whether this is indicative of a chronic problem in the

population that affects reproduction is unknown, but

further investigation is clearly warranted. In this

research, photographic monitoring of skin lesions will

continue, and the resulting data will be assessed by

experts in dermatology and veterinary medicine. These

studies also involve additional assessments of body

condition. (New England Aquarium).

Body Condition Studies. Since lactation in mysticetes is

energetically very expensive, females with diminished

fat reserves should experience relatively low reproductive success. Nutritional stress is one of the most

plausible and testable hypotheses to explain reproductive failure in right whales. Preliminary analyses of

blubber thickness suggest that individuals from the

North Atlantic are significantly less robust than southern

right whales sampled off South Africa. This is suggestive

of nutritional stress, but further studies are required to

confirm this finding and to assess the extent of its impact

Chapter References

Breiwick, J.M. and D.P. DeMaster. 1999. Exploratory Type 3

fishery simulations. International Whaling Commission

document SC/51/AWMP8. 9 pp.

Goddard, P.D. and D.J. Rugh. 1998. A group of right

whales seen in the Bering Sea in July 1996. Marine

Mammal Science 14(2):344-349.

Moore, S., D. Rugh, K. Shelden, B. Mahoney, and R. Hobbs.

1999. Synthesis of available information on the Cook Inlet

stock of beluga whales. AFSC Processed Report 99-06,

22 p. Alaska Fish. Sci. Cent., Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., NOAA,

7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115-0070.
page 32

1999-2000

health and stranding response

National Marine Mammal Stranding Network

Scientists and various organizations make up a broad

network of people who participate in the stranding

network to help NOAA Fisheries carry out the

mandates of the MMPA. NOAA Fisheries oversees the

activities of the stranding networks through a National

Coordinator and five regional coordinators. NOAA

Fisheries formalizes these partnerships with cooperative agreements known as Letters of Agreement or a

Memorandum of Understanding. Most of the stranding

network participants are volunteers from non-profit

organizations but others include aquaria, universities,

state and local governments.

As part of their agreements with NOAA Fisheries,

stranding network members collect certain basic

biological data from strandings, including species

name, sex, length, location, and any evidence of

human interaction. They are also encouraged to

collect other data and tissues for use in scientific

research, for determination of the causes of stranding

and death, for addition evidence of human interactions, for educational purposes, for life history

investigations and biological or health research needs.

he Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response

Program (MMHSRP) evolved in the late 1980's in

response to a growing concern about marine mammals

washing ashore in U.S. waters. The MMHSRP was formalized in 1992 as an amendment to the Marine Mammal

Protection Act (MMPA), and NOAA Fisheries was designated as the lead agency to coordinate related activities for species under the jurisdiction of the Department

of Commerce (whales, dolphins, porpoise, seals and sea

lions). The goals of the MMHSRP, as mandated by the

MMPA, are to assess health trends in marine mammals, to

facilitate the collection and dissemination of data, to

correlate health with available data on physical, chemical, environmental, and biological parameters, and to

coordinate effective responses to unusual mortality

events. To meet these goals, the MMHSRP is made up

several activities and programs that include:

- stranding networks

- disentanglement network

- unusual mortality event response and

investigation program

- biomonitoring program

- tissue and serum bank program

- analytical quality assurance program

- information management program

T

chapter 3

NOAA X FISHERIES

"We’re not just a salvage network anymor e not just a salvage network anymore”

health trends, disease surveillance, stranding response, tissue banking and teaching awareness

mass stranding of rough-toothed

dolphins; R. Hardy, Gulf World

examination of seal eye;

NOAA Fisheries file photo

stranded minke whale;

NOAA Fisheries file photo

I 

health anid stranding response 

Figure 2 Total Plnniped Strandings By Region 1999 

"tI Southeast 

I 

Northeast Northwest 

Reglon 

Alaska Southwest 

0 Released 

Figure 3 Total Pinniped Strandlngs By Region 2000 

Southeast Northeast Northwest 

R~Qlon 

Alaska Southwest 

 total 

mJDWBd 

Released 
Figure 4 Total Cetacean Strandings By Region 1999 

Total Cetacean Strandings By Region 2000 

- 
health and stranding response page 36

mortalities, and over 25 were herded into open water

using pingers. Eleven long-finned pilot whales

(Globicephala melas) stranded on a sandbar in

Nantucket, Massachusetts on July 4, 2000. Two of the

whales were able to free themselves and return to

open water.

Annual Network Meeting and Training: The National

Aquarium in Baltimore, Maryland hosted the annual

Northeast Stranding Network Meeting in 1999 and The

Marine Mammal Stranding Center in Brigantine, New

Jersey hosted it in 2000. The 1999 meeting in Baltimore

was conducted over a four day period and included

a large whale workshop, a business meeting for

stranding network letter holders, an open science

session, a panel discussion and concurrent workshops

on strandings and related issues. Dr. James Mead of

the Smithsonian Institution was the guest speaker and

presented the evolution of the stranding network in

the U.S. During the 2000 meeting in Brigantine, business

was discussed among stranding network letter holders

and presentations were made by each State in the

Northeast stranding network.

Southeast Region Stranding Network

The Southeast network consists of authorized stranding

network responders in eight coastal states (North

Carolina through Texas), Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin

Islands. A total of 677 strandings were reported in

1999 (4 pinnipeds and 673 cetaceans) and 693 in 2000

(13 pinnipeds and 680 cetaceans).

Pinnipeds: In 1999, of the four pinnipeds that were

reported stranded, two were alive and two were

dead. In 2000, of the 13 pinnipeds that were reported

stranded, seven were alive and six were dead. Two

(29% of live stranders) were released back to the wild

following rehabilitation (2 harbor seals).

Cetaceans: In 1999, of the 673 cetaceans that were

reported stranded, 57 were alive and 616 were dead.

Three cetaceans were successfully rehabilitated and

released back to the wild (1 bottlenose dolphin and 2

pantropical spotted dolphins) and one bottlenose

dolphin was successfully rehabilitated, but was

considered unreleasable and was retained for public

display. In 2000, of the 680 cetaceans that were

reported stranded, 76 were alive and 604 were dead.

One bottlenose dolphin was successfully rehabilitated

and release back to the wild.

Mass Strandings: In 1999, the Southeast stranding

network responded to three mass strandings. On May

5, 1999, two short finned pilot whales stranded near

Sanibel, Florida. Three male pan-tropical spotted

dolphins stranded near Indian River, Florida on August

2, 1999. On August 21, 1999, five rough-toothed

dolphins mass stranded on Wassaw Island, Georgia.

Plastic was found embedded in the stomach wall of

one of the animals.

Northeast Region Stranding Network

The Northeast network consists of authorized stranding

network responders in ten coastal states from Maine

through Virginia. A total of 746 marine mammal

strandings were reported in 1999 (318 pinnipeds and

428 cetaceans) and 637 reported in 2000 (423

pinnipeds and 214 cetaceans).

Pinnipeds: In 1999, of the 318 pinnipeds that stranded,

192 were alive and 126 were dead. Sixty-one (32% of

live stranders) were successfully released immediately

after on-site examination or following rehabilitation (2

gray seals, 13 harbor seals, 37 harp seals, and 9 hooded

seals). In 2000, of the 423 pinnipeds that stranded, 242

were alive and 181 were dead. Sixty-nine (29% of live

stranders) were successfully released following

rehabilitation (3 gray seals, 20 harbor seals, 41 harp

seals, and 5 hooded seals).

Cetaceans: In 1999, of the 428 cetaceans that

stranded, 84 were alive and 332 were dead. Three

were successfully released immediately after on-site

examination or following rehabilitation (1 harbor

porpoise and 2 long-finned pilot whales). In 2000, of the

214 cetaceans that stranded, 33 were alive and 181

were dead. None of the cetaceans admitted into

rehabilitation were eligible for release back to the wild

following rehabilitation. A common dolphin was

successfully rehabilitated, but was considered

unreleasable and was retained for public display. A

bottlenose dolphin calf was rescued in the Shrewsbury

River, New Jersey in 2000 and was also retained for

public display because of its young age.

Mass Strandings: In 1999, the Northeast stranding

network responded to three mass strandings along the

coast of Massachusetts. On March 7, 1999, six whitesided dolphins (Lagenorhynehus acutus) mass stranded

in Chipman’s Cove in Welfleet, Massachusetts. Two of

the animals were tagged and immediately released but

later re-stranded dead. Between March 19 and March

24, 1999, 52 white-sided dolphins stranded in various

locations along the inside coast of Cape Cod,

Massachusetts. Four of the animals were tagged,

relocated, and immediately released. On December

15, 1999, three common short beaked dolphins

(Delphinus delphis) stranded in Brewster, Massachusetts,

and one more stranded in Eastham on December 17.

Three of the animals were tagged and immediately

released, but later re-stranded dead.

In 2000, seven white-sided dolphins stranded at several

locations in Wellfleet, Massachusetts between April 4 -

11, 2000. No animals survived. Two white-sided

dolphins stranded in Eastham, Massachusetts on August

14, 2000. The animals were tagged, taken off-shore by

boat, held in deep water and then immediately

released. Between August 24 and August 28, 2000,

more than 40 white-sided dolphins mass stranded in the

Herring River in Welfleet, Massachusetts. There were 12
health and stranding response page 37

Northwest Region Stranding Network

The Northwest Regional stranding network covers the

coasts of Oregon and Washington including the Puget

Sound coastline. A total of 317 marine mammal

strandings were reported in 1999 (267 pinnipeds and

50 cetaceans) and 304 in 2000 (255 pinnipeds and 49

cetaceans).

Pinnipeds: In 1999, of the 267 pinnipeds that were

reported stranded, 157 were alive and 110 were

dead. Twenty-one (13.4% of live stranders) harbor

seals were released back to the wild following

rehabilitation. In 2000, of the 255 pinnipeds that were

reported stranded, 113 were alive, 139 were dead

and for three the condition was not reported. Twentyone (18.6% of live stranders) pinnipeds were successfully rehabilitated and released back to the wild (18

harbor seals and 3 Northern fur seals).

Cetaceans: In 1999, of the 50 cetaceans that were

reported stranded, five were alive and 45 were dead.

In 2000, of the 49 cetaceans that were reported

stranded, five were alive, 42 were dead and for two

the condition was not reported.

Annual Network Meeting and Training: In 1999, NOAA

Fisheries Northwest Region and the National Marine

Mammal Laboratory, in cooperation with Washington

Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Olympic Coast

National Marine Sanctuary, conducted three

workshops for public officials who may take marine

mammals during the course of their official duties

under MMPA section 109(h)(1). The workshops were

attended by representatives from federal, state, and

local agencies, with responsibilities in shoreline areas

including wildlife or marine resource management,

public safety and law enforcement. Workshops

covered recognition and basic life history of local

marine mammals, regulations, research requests,

public relations strategies, and reporting.

Southwest Region Stranding Network

The Southwest network consists of LOA holders in

California and Hawaii.

California: California: A California: total of 1,220 marine mammal strandings

were reported in 1999 (1066 pinnipeds and 154

cetaceans) and 2,016 in 2000 (1857 pinnipeds and 159

cetaceans).

Pinnipeds: In 1999, 348 pinnipeds were released back

to the wild following rehabilitation (168 California sea

lions, 132 Northern elephant seals, 44 harbor seals, 2

Guadalupe fur seals, 1Northern fur seal, and 1Northern

sea lion). A breakdown for live vs. dead strandings is

not currently available for 1999. In 2000, of the 1,857

pinnipeds that were reported stranded, 930 stranded

In 2000, the Southeast stranding network responded to

three mass strandings. On January 16-17, 2000 a mass

stranding of offshore Atlantic stock bottlenose dolphins

occurred in the Florida Keys. Approximately 150

dolphins mass stranded along the bayside of Long Key.

Most of the animals were free swimming and did not

beach themselves. The majority of the animals

(approximately 120) were escorted to deeper water

and headed back out to sea. However, 31 died in the

event and one was admitted into rehabilitation

(orphaned calf). Bottlenose dolphins do not typically

mass strand and historical records for the Florida Bay

only show two other mass strandings of bottlenose

dolphins. Both involved a far smaller number of animals

(in 1987 only three animals stranded and in 1992 only six

animals stranded). Two female Atlantic spotted

dolphins stranded in Frisco, North Carolina on February

9, 2000. Both animals appeared to be in good health,

and there were no signs of human interaction. On

March 24, 2000, four bottlenose dolphins mass stranded

on a sandbar in Ponce Inlet, Florida. Two of the animals

were a mother and calf pair. All four animals were

pushed off of the sandbar where they swam to deeper

waters.

Annual Network Meeting and Training In April 2000, the

Southeast marine mammal stranding network held a

two day workshop in Brunswick, Georgia. State

stranding statistics and regional management issues

were discussed. Much of the meeting was dedicated

to presentations made by many of the Southeast

stranding network members. A dolphin necropsy

wetlab was also a part of this meeting.

members of the Southeast Stranding Network

examine a dead Atlantic bottlenose dolphin

that washed ashore: L. Barre, NOAA Fisheries
health and stranding response page 38

Mass Strandings: On August 29, 1999, 58 beluga

whales mass stranded on Turnagain Arm in

Southcentral Alaska. Most of the animals freed

themselves during the following tidal cycle but five

died. On September 9, 1999, 12 beluga whales mass

stranded on Indian Island in Southcentral Alaska. All

freed themselves during the following tidal cycle.

Disentanglement Network

A specialized subset of the stranding networks on the

East coast of the U.S. is the large whale disentanglement network. NOAA Fisheries established a large

whale disentanglement program, based on succesful

disentanglement efforts by the Center for Coastal

Studies (CCS) as well as provisions set forth in the Final

Recovery Plan for the Northern Right Whale. These

activities are coordinated by NOAA Fisheries regional

stranding coordinators but are primarily carried out by

specially trained personnel. In 1997, NOAA Fisheries

contracted with the CCS in Provincetown, Massachusetts to respond to and provide training for large

whale disentanglements.

The primary disentanglement team is based in

Provincetown, Massachusetts but is supported in the

field by over 500 civilian and governmental voluntary

first responders who are centered in seven strategic

locations from Southeastern Canada to Florida. CCS

provides training and equipment to these first

responders whose duties range from communications,

support and logistics to actual field response and

disentanglement. Training and equipment is updated

annually network-wide. Additionally, disentanglement

network members receive information about network

protocols and techniques through a private website

maintained by CCS. The website also provides up-todate accounts of ongoing disentanglement events

and detailed archived reports. In 1999, the disentanglement network received 12 confirmed reports of

unique entangled whales off the U.S. Atlantic coast.

Seven of these reports initially met NOAA Fisheries

criteria for disentanglement response (i.e., the extent

of the entanglement was non-life threatening).

alive and 927 were dead. There were 514 pinnipeds

(55% of live stranders) released back to the wild

following rehabilitation (335 California sea lions, 129

northern elephant seals, 47 harbor seals, 2 northern fur

seals, and 1 Guadalupe fur seal).

Cetaceans: A breakdown for 1999 live vs. dead

strandings is not currently available. In 2000, of the 159

cetaceans that were reported stranded, 12 were alive

and 147 dead. Three (25% of live stranders) were

immediately released from the beach following the

stranding (1 bottlenose dolphin and 2 Risso’s dolphins).

None were retained for permanent captivity.

Annual Network Meeting and Training: In February 2000,

the Fort MacArthur Marine Mammal Care Center and

the Cabrillo Marine Aquarium hosted a three-day

stranding network conference. The conference

included reports from the various stranding organizations summarizing their past year’s activities, presenting

scientific talks about rehabilitation and research of

pinniped, cetacean, and sea otters and touring the

local rehabilitation facilities.

Hawaii: Hawaii Three marine mammal strandings (all cetaceans) were reported in 1999 (incomplete reporting

year) and 14 in 2000 (3 pinnipeds and 11 cetaceans).

Pinnipeds: In 2000, there were three Hawaiian Monk

Seals that stranded on Kauai. Fish hooks were removed

and the animals were released.

Cetaceans: In 1999, of the three animals that were

reported stranded, one stranded alive and two dead.

The live stranded animal (melon-headed whale) was

towed out to sea and released. In 2000, of the 11

animals that were reported stranded, three stranded

alive and eight stranded dead.

Alaska Region Stranding Network

A total of 238 marine mammals were reported

stranded in 1999 (33 pinnipeds and 205 cetaceans) and

177 in 2000 (38 pinnipeds and 139 cetaceans).

Pinnipeds: In 1999, of the 33 pinnipeds that were

reported stranded, eight were alive and 25 were dead.

In 2000 of the 38 pinnipeds that were reported

stranded, 22 were alive and 16 dead. Three pinnipeds

(13.6% of live stranders) were released back to the wild

following rehabilitation (3 harbor seals and 1 ring seal).

Cetaceans: In 1999, of the 205 cetaceans that were

reported stranded, eight were alive and 142 were

dead. The stranding condition of two animals was

undetermined. In 2000, of the 139 cetaceans that

were reported stranded, 12 were alive and 123 dead.

The stranding condition of four animals was undetermined.

mass stranding of beluga whales:

R. Morris, NOAA Fisheries
health and stranding response page 39

Unusual Marine Mammal Mortalities and Anomalous

Events

1999

Increase in Harbor porpoise strandings along the

Northeast and MidAtlantic coast of U.S. Northeast and MidAtlantic coast of U.S.

A total of 223 harbor porpoises (Phocoena

phocoena) stranded during 1999 from Maine to North

Carolina. During that time, the Working Group was

consulted, but it was not considered an unusual

mortality event. Upon examination, a wide range of

pathologies were found. No difference was

determined when these findings were compared to

findings in harbor porpoises that strand off the United

Kingdom. Eighty-four carcasses were examined by

the Smithsonian Institution Museum of Natural History.

Many showed evidence of blunt force trauma such as

bruising and rake marks. The rake marks on the

carcasses matched tooth marks typical of several

dolphin species including white-sided dolphins,

common dolphins, and bottlenose dolphins. Human

interaction was ruled out as a cause of death.

Scientists are still investigating if the extremes in sea

surface temperatures and currents may have

contributed to food source competition between

larger dolphins and smaller harbor porpoise, resulting in

interspecific aggression.

“Unusual Mortality Event” of Bottlenose dolphins

along the Florida Panhandle

In the summer and winter of 1999, an increased

number of stranded bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops

truncatus) was reported along the panhandle of

Florida. The event coincided with an algal bloom of

Gymnodinium breve, the organism associated with red

tides. As the bloom moved, the locations of the

mortalities followed the movement. The distribution of

this bloom was unusual in that blooms normally are not

seen along the panhandle, but the currents during

1999 were different and blooms were moving north.

Historically, there have been dolphin strandings

associated with Gymnodinium blooms, but no

definitive cause and effect has ever been determined. Brevetoxin was detected in dolphin tissues, but

Of those, three were determined by field assessment

not to be candidates for disentanglement due to the

minor nature of their entanglements. Two of those

whales were subsequently documented to be free of

gear. The remaining four whales assessed as serious

entanglements (three humpbacks and right whale

#1158) were all successfully disentangled by network

personnel. Disentanglement network personnel also

assisted the Canadian Whale Emergency Network in

the Bay of Fundy to partially disentangle a fin whale

(another fin whale was responded to and assessed as

minor) and one right whale (#2710). A third right whale,

#2030, ultimately died after extensive disentanglement

attempts over a period of five weeks. The necropsy

indicated that the entanglement was extremely

extensive and no currently available disentanglement

methods could have saved it.

In 2000, the disentanglement network received 19

confirmed reports of unique entangled live whales off

the U.S. Atlantic coast. Eight of these reports met NOAA

Fisheries criteria for disentanglement response.

Network personnel attached telemetry buoys to the

gear entangling two humpbacks off the Mid-Atlantic

coast. Both of these whales lost their tags within days

and their status is unknown, although it is likely that at

least one of them has shed its gear. Of the remaining

six, three were later documented free of gear, two

were completely disentangled and one could not be

disentangled and has not been resighted.

Reports that did not meet NOAA Fisheries criteria for

disentanglement included three that were assessed in

the field by network personnel as minor, non-life

threatening entanglements. Eight other whales were

lost by the reporting vessels and could not be relocated

by network personnel. Available documentation

indicated that intervention might be required for five of

these whales if resighted; however, it was later

confirmed that one (which was identified photographically) had shed its gear. Additionally, CCS disentanglement personnel assisted the Canadian Whale

Emergency Network to disentangle a right whale

(#2746) in the Bay of Fundy in 2000. The animal was

tagged and ultimately disentangled by the CCS team

near Georges Bank in May 2001.

In California, the stranding network has been responding to reports of entangled whales since the early

1980’s. The disentanglement network consists of rescue

teams from four rehabilitation facilities. In 1999, one

unidentified whale, two live humpback whales, and

three live gray whale entanglements were reported to

the network. Rescue teams successfully disentangled

one of the gray whales, but none of the other animals

were relocated. In 2000, one live humpback whale

and four live gray whale entanglements were reported

to the network. The humpback whale was successfully

disentangled, but none of the other animals were

relocated.

dead harbor porpoise being photographed

and prepared for necropsy: NOAA Fisheries
health and stranding response page 40

“Unusual Mortality Event” of California sea lions off the

coast of California

Between June 23 and December 1 2000, 184

California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) showing

clinical signs of domoic acid toxicity were admitted to

The Marine Mammal Center, a rehabilitation facility in

Sausalito, California,. Intense toxic algal blooms

consisting of Pseudo-nitzschia australis were present

off the California coast during this same time period

similar to the 1998 domoic acid toxicity event (see

1998 MMPA Annual Report). Animals stranded from

Santa Barbara county in the South, to Marin county in

the North. The majority of the animals stranded in San

Luis Obispo county on Oceano Dunes, Pismo Beach or

around Morro Bay. Clinical signs in affected animals

were mainly neurological, consisting of seizures, ataxia,

nystagmus, scratching and muscle tremors. Despite

treatment, 81 (44%) animals died or were euthanized.

Most animals were adult females, although 18 subadult and adult males also stranded. No male

yearlings, and only three female yearlings, were

affected. Eighty-three of the sea lions (45%) stranded

in the first two weeks of the event, with another cluster

of animals stranding in the last week of July on Oceano

Dunes, San Luis Obispo county. During the period that

California sea lions stranded, California sea otters

(Enhydra lutris) also stranded along the central

California coast with signs of domoic acid toxicity.

This event differed from the 1998 event, in that there

was not a close temporal or spatial association

between observed domoic-acid producing algal

blooms and sea lion morbidity and mortality. There

was a pulse in numbers of affected sea lions in the first

two weeks of the event, but there was then a steady

number of affected sea lions, despite increases and

decreases in the severity of blooms off the California

coast. The reasons for this are unclear. As in the

previous event, adult female California sea lions were

the most severely affected age and sex class,

although a few adult males were also affected in

2000. These animals became extremely difficult to

manage when they improved clinically. Differences in

time of the year between the two events also resulted

no baseline data are available to determine whether or

not the presence indicates brevetoxin as the cause of

death. Other possible causes, such as viruses, have not

been ruled out. An increased number of seabird, fish,

and sea turtle mortalities were also reported.

2000

“Unusual Mortality Event” of Gray whales off the West

coast of North America

In 1999, 273 gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus)

strandings were documented along the West coast of

North America. With this unusually high number of

stranded whales, NOAA Fisheries initiated consultation

with the Working Group on Marine Mammal Unusual

Mortality Events in July 1999. Reports for each stranded

whale were examined with particular attention to the

date and location/region of the event and the sex and

age class of the stranded animal. The Northernmost

reported stranding was at the mouth of the Yukon River

in Alaska, while the Southernmost was in Bahia de

Banderas, Mexico. Most of the strandings occurred

during the late spring and summer months, with the

highest number reported in Mexican waters. The sex of

the stranded animals was usually unknown because of

the inaccessibility of the stranding site or advanced

decomposition of the carcass. Of the 115 (42%)

stranded animals of known sex: 76 (66%) were females

and 39 (34%) were male. Age-class determination

varied depending on the reporting source; when

possible, age-class was assigned based on body length.

Of the 133 (49%) reports in which age class or body

length was identified: 51 (38%) were adults, 38 (29%)

were juveniles/subadults, 30 (23%) were yearlings, and

14 (11%) were calves. Several factors may have

contributed to the high number of gray whale

strandings in 1999: starvation, chemical contaminants,

natural toxins, fishery interactions, ship strikes, and wind

and current affects. While the emaciated condition

reported for many of the stranded whales supports the

speculation that starvation may be the primary cause

of the mortalities in 1999, there were no data to support

or refute this contention. Given the expected natural

mortality for a population in excess of 26,600 whales,

the high number of mortalities in 1999 likely did not have

a deleterious effect on the overall population.

California sea lion seizuring from domoic acid toxicity at a

stranding rehabilitation center: NOAA Fisheries file photo

dead, emaciated gray whale being examined:

K. Chandler, Northwest Regional Stranding Network
health and stranding response page 41

 A comprehensive investigation is underway to

determine the cause of this mass stranding. Pathological anaylsis alone cannot differentiate between far-field

blast effects and acoustic induced injury. However, the

acoustic record of the geographical area shows that

no blasts or low frequency pressure events occurred.

Therefore, by deduction, the hemorrhages were

acoustically induced. This stranding coincided with an

offshore transit of the Northeast and Northwest

Providence Channels by Navy ships using tactical

sonars. From the way in which the strandings coincided

with sonar use in both time and geography, the nature

of the physiological effects, and the absence of any

other sound source, it appears that tactical midrange

sonar aboard U.S. Navy ships was the most plausible

source of the acoustic trauma. While the precise

causal mechanisms of tissue damage are unknown,

available evidence points to acoustic or impulse

trauma. Review of passive acoustic data ruled out

volcanic eruptions, landslides, other seismic events, and

explosive blasts.

The unusual extended use of Navy midrange tactical

sonars operating in the area is the most plausible

acoustic source. Research has not yet revealed the

causal mechanisms by which sonar sound could have

caused animals to strand or their tissues to be

damaged. The stranding is believed to have resulted

from a combination of factors including use of tactical

sonars close to shore, and possibly species specific

sensitivity to this type of sonar signal. The two agencies

are openly cooperating in this investigation.

Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response

Program National Database System

In 2000, the MMHSRP laid the groundwork for establishing a National Marine Mammal Health and Stranding

Response Database. Historically, each NOAA Fisheries

regional stranding coordinator collects and stores

stranding data using their own system where data entry

standards are different and inconsistent. As a result,

detecting national trends in real-time has been difficult.

The purpose of this National Database is to consolidate

regional stranding data and provide a central location

on the Internet where Stranding Network Participants,

NOAA Fisheries Regional Coordinators, NOAA Fisheries

National Stranding Coordinators, members of the

Working Group on Unusual Marine Mammal Mortality

Events, marine mammal researchers and other

government agencies can obtain various levels of

stranding data. The database will provide: (1)

automation of functions that are currently being

performed manually by the NOAA Fisheries Regional

Stranding Coordinators; (2) accessibility to real-time

stranding data; and (3) interface with other database

systems (i.e., Smithsonian Institutes Cetacean Database

in differences in behavior of affected animals. Many of

the female sea lions were in estrus when they recovered from signs of toxicity, and were very aggressive to

humans. Thus, this event resulted in large numbers of

animals in rehabilitation that were hard to handle by

inexperienced volunteers.

“Unusual Mortality Event” of Harbor seals off Pt. Reyes, “Unusual Mortality Event” of Harbor seals off Pt. Reyes,

California

Between May and July 2000, approximately 23 harbor

seals were found dead on their haulout/rookery at he

Point Reyes National Seashore. The Working Group on

Unusual Marine Mammal Mortality Events was

consulted, and they deemed this as an official

investigation. The animals appeared to be in good

body condition and no external lesions were noted.

Only three animals were fresh enough to sample and

Pseudomonas aeruginosa, a bacterium, was isolated

from all three. This bacterium does not typically cause

primary pneumonia indicating that the animals may

have been suffering other immunosuppressive disease.

The investigation is still ongoing.

Mass Stranding of Beaked whales in the Bahamas

From March 15-16, 2000, 17 cetaceans stranded in the

Bahamas. The strandings were clustered within a 36

hour period over three islands: Grand Bahama, Abaco,

and North Eleuthra. During this time period, nine

Cuvier’s beaked whales (Ziphius cavirostris), three

Blainville’s beaked whales (Mesoplodon densirostris),

two indentified Ziphiidae beaked whales and two minke

whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) were reported

stranded. Seven of the animals died, and six of these

animals were sampled or necropsied. The remaining

live whales were pushed off the beach and/or

escorted to deeper water. Initial gross and computerized tomography findings in the beaked whales

showed that the animals were in good body condition,

that there was no indication of debilitating infectious

disease, ship strikes, blunt contact trauma, or fishery

related injuries. Some of them had food remains in their

stomachs and showed evidence of overheating,

physiological shock and cardiovascular collapse which

are common findings associated with stranding and are

likely the immediate cause of death. Specimens from

four of the beaked whales were not too decomposed

for analysis and all showed auditory structural damage,

specifically blood effusion around the ears. The

pathologies of the two freshest animals were consistent

with an auditory or impulse trauma event that may have

compromised hearing or the vestibular system, but

were not immediately or directly fatal. The minke whales

were pushed off the shore alive but were not

examined; therefore, no definitive statements can be

made about the cause of their stranding.
health and stranding response page 42

- Protocols for preparing, analyzing and

distributing control tissues

- Setting standards to measure data accuracy

- Developing standard reference materials

System and National Institute of Standards and

Technology Marine Mammal Tissue Bank). The project

will consist of multiple phases of development, design,

testing and implementation. A Software Development

User Committee will be formed in 2001 to provide

comments and suggestions regarding the system

requirements. The database will be developed in HTML

and Oracle and reside at NOAA Fisheries Headquarters

in Silver Spring, Maryland. Stranding data will have

remote and global accessibility via a web-based

application.

National Marine Mammal Tissue Bank

Congress established the National Marine Mammal

Tissue Bank in 1992 under the MMHSRP (Title IV of the

MMPA). This bank provides a long-term archive for

marine mammal tissues that scientists can use in the

future to measure potentially harmful chemicals.

The Tissue Bank is managed by the National Institute of

Standards and Technology (NIST) in Charleston, South

Carolina and Gaithersburg, Maryland. NIST sets the

standards of collection, banking and analysis for the

program. Only tissues that have been collected under

strict protocols can be submitted into the Tissue Bank.

Liver, kidney and blubber samples are collected from

marine mammals that are harvested in legal subsistence hunts, by-caught in fisheries, captured as part of

a capture-release study or stranded. The sources of

marine mammal tissues in 1999 and 2000 came from

many partners, including:

- Other Federal agencies (USFWS, National

Ocean Service, U.S. National Geological

Service and Alaska Biological Science Center)

- Non Federal agencies (Alaska North Slope

Borough, Marine Mammal Center, New

England Aquarium, University of North Carolina

at Wilmington, Duke Marine Laboratory,

Kewarek Inc.- Natural Resources Division and

the University of Alaska in Fairbanks).

During 1999-2000, 553 specimens were collected from

187 animals. Two new species were added to the

Tissue Bank- Cuvier's beaked whale (Ziphius cavirostris)

and Atlantic spotted dolphin (Stenella frontalis).

Appendix B, Table 4 oultines a list of species, location

and date of collection. Currently, the Tissue Bank

inventory contains 1,722 individual animals representing

29 species.

NIST has also developed a quality assurance program

as part of the Tissue Bank. The goals of the quality

assurance program are to maintain the quality and

consistency of the data coming from analysis of Tissue

Bank specimens. This program consists of several

components, including:

Marine Mammal Tissue Bank;

National Institute of Standards and Technology
I chapter 4 

permits and public display 

T he Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) establishes a 

moratorium on the "taking" of marine mammals by any 

person in U.S. watersand by US, citizens in international 

waters, as well as a moratorium on the importing of marine 

mammalsand marine mammal products into the U.S. 

However, the MMPA authorizes permits andlor authorizations for the following octivities: 

. scientific research 

enhancing the survival or recovery of a marine 

mammal species or stock 

commerciai/educationai photography . first-time Import for public display or capture of 

wild marine mammals for public display 

incidental take during commercial fisheries . incidental take during non-fishery activities 

I 

NOAA Fisheries maintains authority over whales, dolphins. 

porpoises. sealsand sea lions. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service maintains authority for woiruses. polar bears, sea 

otters, and manatees. Some species of marine mammals 

are also protected by the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

and the Fur Seal Act (FSA) which can mandate addltional 

restrictions. 

During 1999 and 2MX). of the number of applications 

received, NOAA Fisheries issued 130 new permit actions 

for activities related to scientific research, enhancing the 

survival or recovery of a marine mammai species or stock. ( comrnercial/educarional photogrophy. ond firsr-rime 

.mDon for ~ubiic diso~av IAbIhorizat~ons for ~nc.aentai take 

during commerciai'fisheri'es and non-fishery activities are 

covered In Chapters 5 and 6. respectively.) Permit actions 

include issuance of a new permit and amendments to 

existing permits. A major amendment is subject to Me 

same notlce. review and comment procedures as a 

permit appiication. Minor amendments and authorizations, such as permit extensions of under 12 months or 

changes in research personnel, do not require a public 

comment period. 

During 1999-2000, NOAA Fishefies improved sections 

of its program to promote more efficient and timely 

processing of permits. Some of these efforts included: 

(1) increase in staff; (2) revisions to application 

requirements; (3) developmentof an internal permit 

database: and (4) posting of appiication materiaisand 

relevant information to the web at: 

Future efforts planned in 2001 include: (I) developing 

cumulative impact assessments of research on 

endangered species of marine mammals: (2) stricter 

enforcementof tlmely annuaiand final reports. as well 

as submission of publications from permitted research: 

(3) further development of internal database to assist 

in more efficient permit processing; (4) use of 

electronic opplicotions for faster distribution and 

review period; and (5) increased outreach on 

permitting issues. NOAA Fisheries is also taking 

measures to address the likely increase in permitrelated workload due to the announcement of 

increased Congressional appropriations, including the 

Steller Sea Lion Research hltiative. 

Aulhalzed~tAcncrsfu1~Crd2000 

collection of ma1 ._ 

40 mammals from the 

35 wild. One permit 31 application for first25 thne import was 

" 20 submitted in late 

2WO and a determi- 

-5 
permits and public display page 44

issued a LOC and 15% returned as incomplete, not

bona fide, or needing a scientific research permit to

cover Level A harassment. In 1999 and 2000, 21 of the

91 LOIs were reviewed. Of the LOCs issued, 74% cover

research on cetaceans, mainly bottlenose dolphins,

and 26% cover research on pinnipeds, mainly California

sea lions and harbor seals. The vast majority of LOCs

cover research methodologies involving photoidentification and behavioral observation with a minority

focusing on aerial surveys and acoustic recordings.

Clearly, the GA program has been successful in

providing a streamlined approach to research involving

Level B harassment of non-listed marine mammals.

Photography Permits

Similar to the restrictions that apply to the GA, the 1994

MMPA amendments also provided new authority to

issue permits for educational and commercial

photography involving only Level B Harassment of nonlisted marine mammals. After the 1994 amendments,

NOAA Fisheries instituted a pilot program for commercial/educational photography permits in order to

determine the scope of the program. Pilot photography

permits are processed according to the statuatory

criteria of scientific research permits, including a 30-day

public comment period. Currently, NOAA Fisheries limits

the authorization of photographic activities to up to two

years, provides authorization for specific projects and

requires a report on the activity and its effects on the

marine mammals within 60 days of the completion of

the photographic work. The reports will assist NOAA

Fisheries in determining if these activities are unnecessarily increasing harassment of the animals and what

conditions may be needed in the final program. NOAA

Fisheries expects to publish a Proposed Rule on these

permits in 2002 or 2003.

Public Display

The 1994 MMPA amendments changed NOAA

Fisheries’ jurisdiction over captive care and maintenance of marine mammals held for public display,

placing it under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Animal

Permit Regulations

A number of existing regulations are relevant to the

processing of NOAA Fisheries marine mammal permits.

On May 10, 1996, NOAA Fisheries published a Final Rule in

the Federal Register that amended the regulations for

permits under the MMPA, the ESA and the FSA (61 FR

53320). This rule updated and consolidated the

regulations for special exception permits and established basic permit requirements applicable to all permits

to take, import, and export marine mammals for

purposes of scientific research and enhancement,

photography, and public display under the MMPA. It also

provided additional permit criteria specific to scientific

research and enhancement only and established

administrative procedures for determining the

releasability or non-releasability of stranded marine

mammals. However, this Final Rule did not include the

additional requirements specific to photography or

public display established by the 1994 MMPA amendments.

Over the next few years, NOAA Fisheries plans to publish

the following Proposed and Final Rules related to

permitting:

• Proposed Rule for public display, including

marine mammal transfer and inventory

reporting requirements (see further discussion in

the public display section of this chapter)

• Proposed Rule for commercial/educational

photography permits

• Final Rule for General Authorizations for Scientific

Research (Interim Final Rule was published on

October 3, 1994 (59 FR 50372))

General Authorization for Scientific Research

In 1994, the MMPA was amended to provide a more

streamlined approach for research involving only Level

B Harassment of non-listed marine mammals (i.e., those

species not listed as endangered or threatened under

the ESA). Under the General Authorization of Scientific

Research (GA), researchers submit a Letter of Intent

(LOI) containing detailed information so that NOAA

Fisheries can accurately determine whether or not the

research is bona fide and that the impacts of the

activities are limited to Level B Harassment only. Should it

be determined that the project is eligible, no public

comment period is necessary. Rather, the researcher

receives a Letter of Confirmation (LOC) that their

research activities are covered under the GA. An

Interim Final Rule was published on October 3, 1994 (59

FR 50372) to cover the GA. NOAA Fisheries is currently

working to assess the GA program and expects to

publish a final rule in the future.

Since the inception of the GA in 1994, 91 LOIs have

been reviewed by NOAA Fisheries with 85% of those

permitted researchers observe killer whale

behavior: NOAA Fisheries file photo
permits and public display page 45

releasable marine mammals for public display in lieu of

a capture. No applications for a permit to retain a

releasable marine mammal were submitted to NOAA

Fisheries during the 1999-2000 reporting period.

Marine Mammal Inventory

The 1994 amendments to the MMPA require NOAA

Fisheries to maintain an inventory of marine mammals

held in captivity in the U.S. The marine mammal

inventory database included 2,146 living marine

mammals at the close of 1999 and 2,230 living marine

mammals at the end of 2000 (compared to 2,229 living

marine mammals at the close of 1998). This inventory

includes animal-specific information such as animal

identification, species, sex, estimated or actual birth

date, date of acquisition or disposition by the holder,

source of acquisition, and name of receiver if

transferred. Section 104(c)(2)(E) of the MMPA requires

a 15-day notification prior to the transfer or transport of

any marine mammal held for public display. Current

policies include reporting births and deaths and the

verification of transfers/transports within 30 days.

Presentations to members of the public display industry

regarding reporting requirements (inventory changes

and transfers/transports) were given at the annual

conference of the Zoo Registrars Association and the

annual conference of the American Zoos and

Aquarium Association.

Marine mammals may be held in captivity for scientific

research, enhancement, or public display. Scientific

research and enhancement activities require the

issuance of a permit. Section 104(c)(2)(A) of the MMPA

allows for the public display of marine mammals within

the U.S. provided that the holder meet all of the

following criteria:

• offer a program of education or conservation

that is based on professionally recognized

standards of the public display community

• be registered or hold a license under the

Animal Welfare Act (AWA)

• maintain facilities for the public display of

marine mammals that are open to the public

on a regularly scheduled basis and not limited

or restricted in access except for admission

fees.

To ensure compliance with the statutory requirements,

and paralleling efforts to reduce and streamline

notification requirements and reporting necessities,

NOAA Fisheries is continuing to develop a Cooperative

Agreement with the International Species Information

System (ISIS) to maintain the captive marine mammal

inventory database. ISIS is an international non-profit

organization that manages a similar database and

information system for wild animal species held in

captivity, including marine mammals. Under the

Retention of Stranded Marine Mammals

Beached or stranded marine mammals taken under the

authority of section 109(h) of the MMPA may be held for

the purposes of rehabilitation until:

• the animal is returned to its natural habitat

• NOAA Fisheries concurs with a determination by

the attending veterinarian that it is not feasible to

return the animal to its natural habitat and

permanent holding is authorized by NOAA

Fisheries

• NOAA Fisheries authorizes the permanent

retention of the animal as a substitute for the

capture of one of the same species from the

wild, even though the attending veterinarian in

consultation with NOAA Fisheries determines that

the animal is releasable.

The permanent retention of a rehabilitated, beached or

stranded marine mammal must be authorized by NOAA

Fisheries, in accordance with applicable MMPA

requirements, before a non-releasable animal may be

retained by the rehabilitating facility or transferred to

another facility for public display purposes. Additionally,

the receiving or retaining facility must meet the three

public display criteria (see Marine Mammal Inventory).

During 1999 and 2000, 16 marine mammals were

determined non-releasable and retained by domestic

facilities for public display (see Table 1 above).

A permit is required to retain or obtain rehabilitated

beached or stranded marine mammals for purposes of

scientific research, enhancing the survival or recovery of

a marine mammal species or stocks or to retain

Welfare Act (AWA) administered by the Department of

Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

(USDA/APHIS). However, the MMPA requires that NOAA

Fisheries maintain certain activities, such as the captive

Marine Mammal Inventory Database, regulate first time

imports of captive marine mammals and collections from

the wild, manage the retention of stranded marine

mammals, and ensure that U.S.-based captive marine

mammals, and their progeny, are afforded comparable

protection after export abroad.

Table 1: Non-Releasability Determinations by

Species in 1999 and 2000

Date Num. Species

1999 1 Bottlenose dolphin

10 California sea lions

4 Harbor seals

1 Pantropical spotted dolphin

2000 1 Bottlenose dolphin
permits and public display page 46

In 1997, the NOAA Office of General Counsel reviewed

the legal basis for the NOAA Fisheries policy and found

that the comity requirement is reasonable within the

context of the MMPA. This policy will be reflected in the

Proposed Rule for public display and made available for

comment. During 1999 and 2000, 25 animals were

exported (the same six animals are sent seasonally to

Canada’s Wonderland, see Table 2 below). As part of

the export arrangements, an inventory of U.S.-source

animals is maintained by NOAA Fisheries. (See Table 3

below for a listing of captive animals exported from the

U.S. since 1995.)

cooperative agreement, ISIS will manage the captive

marine mammal inventory as part of the central ISIS

database system. The major objectives of this agreement are to eliminate current duplication of reporting

and improve the long-term efficiency and quality of the

marine mammal database. The ISIS transition will be

outlined in the public display Proposed Rule scheduled for

2001. Holders will continue to submit reports to NOAA

Fisheries until the Final Rule for public display is published

and they are notified of the transition.

Exports of Captive Marine Mammals

Marine mammals may be exported for public display

purposes as long as the foreign receiver meets

requirements comparable to those a U.S. receiver must

meet. Because foreign facilities are not subject to the

licensing or registration requirements under the AWA, it is

only through the MMPA’s comparability requirement that

adequate care standards for marine mammals

transported to foreign facilities can be assured. Following

a policy established in 1975, NOAA Fisheries continues to

require the foreign receiver to obtain from the government agency with jurisdiction over the facility a certification that the facility meets standards comparable to the

AWA and MMPA and includes a statement that the

foreign facility will afford comity to NOAA Fisheries efforts

to enforce the MMPA and AWA for these U.S. animals

abroad. The comity agreement remains a valuable and

reasonable diplomatic tool for the continued protection

and welfare of live marine mammals exported from the

U.S.

Table 2: Captive Marine Mammals of U.S.-Source Exported in 1999 and 2000

(for species under Department of Commerce jurisdiction)

Date Num. Species Source Destination

02/26/99 2 California sea lions Marine Animal Productions JV China, Beijing Aquarium

04/12/99 5 California sea lions Marine Animal Productions Canada’s Wonderland (Ontario)

1 Harbor seal

04/19/00 5 California sea lions Marine Animal Productions Canada’s Wonderland (Ontario)

1 Harbor seal

06/24/00 9 California sea lions Sea World, Inc. Ocean Park Corp. (Hong Kong)

8 Harbor seals

Table 3. Captive Animals Exported Since1995. Table 3. Captive Animals Exported Since1995.

(under Department of Commerce jurisdiction)

Since 1995, 115 captive marine mammals have been

exported from U.S.-based facilities to 14 different

foreign facilities. This includes: foreign facilities. This includes:

 1 Killer whale

46 Bottlenose dolphins

51 California sea lions

12 Harbor seals

 2 Northern elephant seals

 3 South American sea lions**

** South American sea lions were exported for

traveling show and then re-imported.
permits and public display page 47

Keiko, the Killer Whale

Keiko, the killer whale from the "Free Willy" movies, was

exported from the Oregon Coast Aquarium to Iceland on

September 8, 1998 for the purpose of public display with

the understanding that a scientific research permit would

be necessary prior to attempting to release Keiko to the

wild. Ocean Futures Society, formerly the Free Willy/Keiko

Foundation, submitted an application for a scientific

research permit in May of 2000 to the Animal Welfare

Board in Iceland. NOAA Fisheries, as well as other

government agencies and independent experts,

received a copy of the research protocol for review.

Iceland issued a permit for Keiko’s release on June 9,

2000. Notification was given to NOAA Fisheries on

December 22, 2000, that the reintroduction effort was to

stop for the year due to the onset of winter weather and

that the project would be continued in 2001.

Public Display Regulations

NOAA Fisheries continued to prepare the Proposed Rule

implementing the 1994 amendments to the MMPA

regarding marine mammals held captive for the purpose

of public display and clarifying the public display

requirements for acquisition and disposition of marine

mammals. The purpose of this Proposed Rule will be to

codify current policies of inventory reporting including

acquisition, disposition, exportation, transfers/transports

and the ISIS transition. The Proposed Rule will also amend

the regulations governing the taking and importation of

marine mammals to clarify the requirements for exports of

animals, allow the opportunity for public comment on the

acquisition of an unreleasable beached or stranded

animal by a facility that has not previously held marine

mammals, and to clarify the need for a permit to retain a

releasable beached or stranded animal. In addition to the

above, this Proposed Rule will establish a means for

identifying parts taken from public display animals and

authorize the importation of parts for medical examination. The Proposed Rule is expected to be published in

2002.

Captive Care of Marine Mammals

When the MMPA was amended in 1994, NOAA Fisheries’

role in specifying care and maintenance standards for

captive marine mammals was eliminated. This responsibility was transferred to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service under the

Animal Welfare Act. The revised Memorandum of

Agreement (MOA) of 1998 defined responsibilities under

the MMPA and AWA for the captive care of marine

mammals. NOAA Fisheries, APHIS, the USFWS and the

Marine Mammal Commission conduct monthly meetings

to facilitate inter-agency cooperation and communication regarding the captive care of marine mammals.

transport of killer whale between

public display facilities; NOAA Fisheries file photo

Public Display Permit Applications

One permit application for public display purposes was

submitted during 1999 and 2000. Sea World, Inc.

requested a permit to import of one killer whale (Orcinus

orca), from the Vancouver Aquarium, Vancouver, B.C.,

Canada to Sea World in San Diego, California. The

application was determined complete in November,

2000 and published for public comment in the Federal

Register. The comment period will close on January 5,

2001.

Closures of Marine Parks

NOAA Fisheries was notified of an emergency situation

involving the demolition of the American Wilderness

Experience in Ontario, California, and the necessary

relocation of three harbor seals in May 2000. American

Wilderness Experience (operated by Ogden Entertainment, Inc.) informed NOAA Fisheries of the situation one

week prior to the scheduled start of demolition activities.

NOAA Fisheries waived the necessary 15 day transfer/

transport notification requirement for the health and

safety of the animals involved. Arrangements were

made with the Orange County Zoo, Orange, California,

to take custody of the animals. The harbor seals are

currently being maintained at Sea World of California,

San Diego, California, pending the completion of the

Orange County Zoo exhibit.
page 48 permits and public display

Notable Enforcement Actions Related to Permits

Hawaiian Whale Watching and Research Operation

Assessed $13,000 Civil Penalty for Permit Violations

In April 1999, NOAA charged the Pacific Whale

Foundation (PWF) of Kehei, Hawaii, with seven civil

violations under the MMPA and ESA. NOAA assessed a

civil penalty of $13,000 against PWF in a Notice of a

Violation and Assessment (NOVA) for actions that

occurred between January and May of 1998.

The charges included one count of failing to allow

inspection of research records by providing a federal

agent with falsified documents; one count of unauthorized approaches to within 100 yards of humpback

whales; three counts of failing to include various data

resulting from research efforts in annual reports; one

count of allowing unauthorized personnel to operate a

vessel during research activities; and one count of

failing to keep complete and accurate records of

research activities. The case resulted from an

investigation into PWF’s research activities during the

1998 whale research season after the agency received

information that PWF had begun its research without the

required permit authorizations.

In May 2000, PWF signed a settlement agreement with

NOAA for civil violations under the MMPA and ESA.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement: (1) PWF

admitted to two charges and paid a $5,000 fine; (2)

NOAA dismissed one charge of unauthorized approaches of humpback whales; and (3) NOAA issued a

single written warning for four alleged charges.

Sugarloaf Dolphin Sanctuary Case

In June 1999, former “Flipper” dolphin trainer Richard

O’Barry, and his associate Lloyd A. Good III, were found

guilty of violating the MMPA for releasing two captive

dolphins off the Florida coast in May 1996 that were not

prepared to survive in the wild and sustained lifethreatening injuries. O’Barry, Good, and their respective

corporate entities were ordered to pay civil penalties

totaling $59,500.

Judge Peter A. Fitzpatrick, a U.S. Administrative Law

Judge, fined O’Barry, Good, Sugarloaf Dolphin

Sanctuary Inc., and the Dolphin Project Inc. with civil

penalties of $40,000, the maximum penalty provided by

law, for illegally “taking” by harassment and illegally

transporting each of the dolphins. The Sugarloaf

Dolphin Sanctuary was fined an additional $19,500 for

failing to notify NOAA Fisheries prior to the transport of

the dolphins.

The two dolphins had been collected from the wild off

the coast of Mississippi during the 1980’s and were in

captivity for almost 10 years. They were initially in the

U.S. Navy’s marine mammal program, and were

transferred to the Sugarloaf Dolphin Sanctuary in 1994 as

part of a project that intended to return them to the wild.

Although the Sugarloaf Dolphin Sanctuary obtained the

necessary authorizations to have the dolphins on public

display, a scientific research permit was never obtained

or requested prior to the release.

O’Barry and Good released the two dolphins, named

“Luther” and “Buck,” approximately six miles off the coast

of Key West, Florida, on May 23, 1996. The day after the

dolphins were released, Luther appeared in a congested

Key West marina with deep lacerations, approaching

people, and begging for food. Buck, found two weeks

after his release over 40 miles away, had deep

lacerations and was emaciated.

NOAA Fisheries determined that the dolphins were in

need of medical attention. With the help of members of

the Southeast marine mammal stranding network, the

USN, USCG and Florida Marine Patrol, NOAA Fisheries

successfully rescued the animals and provided veterinary

care.

Releasing captive marine mammals to the wild can be

hazardous to both the released animal and wild marine

mammal populations, if conducted improperly and

without appropriate safeguards. Issues of concern

include: (1) the ability of released animals to adequately

forage and defend themselves from predators; (2) any

behavioral patterns developed in captivity that could

affect the social behavior of wild animals, as well as the

social integration of the released animals; and (3) disease

transmission and/or unwanted genetic exchange

between released animals and wild stocks. The MMPA

requires and NOAA Fisheries maintains that any marine

mammal release should be conducted with a MMPA

scientific research permit to protect the health and

welfare of marine mammals. The MMPA scientific

research permit is required to ensure that humane

protocols be in place that maximize the release’s

chance of success, and provide for long-term follow-up

monitoring and emergency contingency plans in case it is

necessary to rescue a released animal.
page 49

1999-2000

small take authorizations

Incidental Harassment Authorization Program

Section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA was amended in 1994

(Public Law 103-238) to establish an expedited process

by which citizens of the U.S. can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine

mammals by harassment. It established specific time

limits for processing the application, for public notice

and comment on the application and for issuance or

denial of the authorization.

On April 10, 1996 (61 FR 15884), NOAA Fisheries

published an Interim Rule to amend the small take

regulations to implement the process for issuing

harassment authorizations without the need to issue

specific regulations governing the taking of marine

mammals for each and every activity. This rule sets

forth the process for applying for and obtaining an

authorization; the time limits set by the statute for

NOAA Fisheries review, publication, and public notice

and comment on any applications for authorization

that would be granted; and the requirements for

submission of a plan of cooperation and for scientific

peer review of an applicant’s monitoring plans (if that

activity may affect the availability of a species or stock

of marine mammal for taking for subsistence

purposes).

Under this incidental harassment provision in the

MMPA, during 1999 and 2000, NOAA Fisheries issued

authorizations to the following activities: (1) seismic

surveys in the U.S. Beaufort Sea, Alaska; (2) seismic

retrofit and attenuation tests for two bridges in San

Francisco Bay, California; (3) conducting water

intrusion and earthquake hazard studies off Southern

California; and (4) oil exploration drilling in the U.S.

Beaufort Sea.

ince 1982, the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA)

has provided a mechanism for authorizing, upon

request, the incidental (not intentional) taking of small

numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage

in a specified, lawful activity (other than commercial

fishing) for periods not to exceed five years per

authorization. Before issuing regulations that would allow

the harassment, injury or mortality of marine mammals

under this provision of the MMPA, NOAA Fisheries must

determine that the total of such taking will not have more

than a negligible impact on the species requested to be

taken and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact

on the availability of the species for Alaskan subsistence

hunting. Regulations issued in 1982, and amended in 1989

to allow the taking of threatened and endangered

marine mammal species, require the applicant to

mitigate the taking to the lowest level practicable, to

monitor the taking of marine mammals during the activity

and to report the results to NOAA Fisheries.

In 1999 and 2000, several activities had multi-year

authorizations to incidentally take marine mammals under

this provision of the MMPA. The authorized activities were:

(1) the taking of bottlenose and spotted dolphins

incidental to the removal of oil and gas structures in the

Gulf of Mexico; (2) the taking of a number of species of

marine mammals during a U.S. Navy (USN) ship shock trial

for the USS SEAWOLF submarine off Jacksonville, Florida.

(3) the taking of several species of seals at the Seabrook

Nuclear Power Station, Seabrook, New Hampshire; (4) the

taking of seals during winter oil exploration in the Beaufort

Sea, Alaska; and (5) the taking of seals and sea lions

incidental to missile and rocket launches from

Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. In May, 2000, a

final authorization to take marine mammals was issued for

an oil and gas development facility in the U.S. Beaufort

Sea. The Letter of Authorization (LOA) was issued for this

activity limited to construction of the facility with an LOA

for oil production delayed until next year. In November,

2000, the authorization to take dolphins incidental to

removal of oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico expired. Plans are

underway to renew these regulations.

NOAA Fisheries has also received several applications for

taking marine mammals under the MMPA that were being

processed at the end of 2000. These included : (1) a ship

shock trial for the USS WINSTON CHURCHILL, (2) the

deployment of the USN’s SURTASS LFA sonar, (3) the

operation of the Acoustic Thermometry of Ocean

Climate (ATOC) source by the North Pacific Acoustic

Laboratory; and (4) the U.S. Coast Guard’s application for

ship strikes of large whales off the U.S. East coast.

S

chapter 5

NOAA X FISHERIES

NOAA Fisheries file photos
page 50

1999-2000

Category II: The total annual mortality and serious injury

of a stock in a given fishery is greater than 1% and less

than 50% of the PBR level of that stock.

Category III: The total annual mortality and serious

injury of a stock in a given fishery is less than or equal to

1% of the PBR level for that stock.

Information Used to Classify Commercial Fisheries

NOAA Fisheries bases its classification of commercial

fisheries on a variety of information. The best source of

information about the level of fishery-specific

incidental marine mammal serious injury and mortality is

a fishery observer program. Thus, if data from an

observer program are available, NOAA Fisheries will

use this information to classify the fishery. However,

because only some commercial fisheries have been

monitored by observer programs, other information

may also be used to classify fisheries. If data from

fishery observer programs are not available, NOAA

Fisheries may also use the following sources of

information to classify fisheries: fishing techniques, gear

used, methods used to deter marine mammals, target

species, seasons and areas fished, qualitative data

from logbooks or fisher reports, stranding data, and

the species and distribution of marine mammals in the

area.

Publication of the List of Fisheries

NOAA Fisheries must publish an annual List of Fisheries

(LOF). Proposed changes to the LOF for the upcoming

year are scheduled to be published in the Federal

Register during the summer of each year for public

comment. Public comments received are considered

during development of the final LOF, which is ideally

published each fall. For each fishery, the LOF must

include the number of vessels or participants in that

fishery and list which marine mammal stocks or species

interact with that fishery. Because the focus of the

reporting requirement in the MMPA is on "incidental

mortality and injury" to marine mammals, any marine

mammal species that has been injured or killed in a

particular commercial fishery is included in the LOF.

he Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) was

amended by Congress in 1994 to establish a long-term

regime for governing interactions between marine

mammals and commercial fisheries. The 1994 amendments to the MMPA established section 118, which

contains the goal to reduce incidental mortality or serious

injury of marine mammals occurring in the course of

commercial fishing operations to insignificant levels

approaching a zero mortality and serious injury rate within

seven years. Final regulations implementing this program

were published in 1995 after considerable public

involvement and comment (60 FR 45086, August 30,

1995).

The Annual List of Fisheries

NOAA Fisheries must classify all U.S. commercial fisheries

into Category I, II or III, based on whether the fishery has

a frequent, occasional, or remote likelihood of causing

incidental mortality and/or serious injury of marine

mammals, respectively. NOAA Fisheries defined

Category I, II, and III fisheries based on the annual level

of incidental mortality and serious injury of marine

mammals relative to each stock’s calculated Potential

Biological Removal (PBR) level.

Definitions of Category I, II, and III Commercial Fisheries

The fishery classification criteria consists of a two-tiered,

stock-specific approach that first addresses the total

impact of all fisheries on each marine mammal stock,

and then addresses the impact of individual fisheries on

each stock. NOAA Fisheries uses the following decision

process when assessing each fishery with data available:

Tier 1: Tier 1 considers the cumulative fishery mortality

and serious injury on a particular stock. If the total annual

mortality and serious injury across all fisheries that interact

with a stock is less than or equal to 10% of the PBR level of

that stock, then all fisheries interacting with this stock are

placed in Category III. Otherwise, these fisheries are

subject to Tier 2 standards.

Tier 2: Tier 2 considers fishery-specific mortality for a

particular stock. Fisheries under Tier 2 fall into one of three

categories.

Category I: The total annual mortality and serious injury of

a stock in a given fishery is greater than or equal to 50

percent of the calculated PBR level of that stock.

T

chapter 6

NOAA X FISHERIES

interaction with commercial fisheries

killer whales and fishing vessel;

NOAA Fisheries file photo
interaction with commercial fisheries page 51

observer programs are to obtain statistically reliable

estimates of incidental mortality and serious injury of

marine mammals in commercial fisheries, to determine

the reliability of fishers’ reports, and to identify changes

in fishing methods or technology that may decrease

incidental marine mammal mortality and serious injury.

In 1999, NOAA Fisheries established a National Observer

Program, overseen by the Office of Science and

Technology (OST), to provide a formal mechanism for

NOAA Fisheries to address observer issues of national

importance in a coordinated and consistent manner.

In recognition of the value of observer data to the

goals of the marine mammal program, the NOAA

Fisheries Office of Protected Resources (OPR) has

provided funding derived from the MMPA Implementation PPA for marine mammal observer programs in

several different fisheries since 1990. Additionally, OPR

permanently transferred $150,000 to the base funds of

the NOAA Fisheries Office of Science and Technology

to support the National Observer Program. Staff from

OPR hare active members of the Advisory Team to the

National Observer Program.

Eight of the 30 Category I and II fisheries were observed

for marine mammal interactions with MMPA funds in

2000:

• Cook Inlet salmon set and drift gillnet

• Northeast multispecies sink gillnet

• Atlantic squid/mackerel/butterfish trawl fishery

• Mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet

• Southeast Atlantic shark drift gillnet/ strike net

• Atlantic Ocean/Caribbean/Gulf of Mexico

large pelagics longline

• California/Oregon thresher shark/ swordfish

drift gillnet

• California angel shark/halibut and other

species large mesh (>3.5 inch) set gillnet

Observer data are summarized in the Stock Assessment

Reports. (See Chapter 1)

Registration Requirements for Commercial Fishers

Commercial fishers who participate in Category I or II

fisheries must register in the Marine Mammal Authorization Program (MMAP). Registration under the MMAP is

administered by NOAA Fisheries Regional Offices.

The MMPA states that NOAA Fisheries should, to the

maximum extent practicable, integrate registration of

participants in Category I or II fisheries under the MMPA

with existing state or federal permit systems. Between

1995 and 1998, NOAA Fisheries integrated registration

in the MMAP with pre-existing state and federal fisheries

permit systems for most fisheries in Category I and II.

Over the past two years, these efforts have resulted in

reduced paperwork for both NOAA Fisheries and the

Definitions of U.S. Commercial Fisheries in the LOF

Fisheries in the LOF are defined by the broad or specific

geographic area in which they operate, the gear type

used, the method used, and the target species. NOAA

Fisheries will, whenever possible, define fisheries in a

manner which is consistent with federal, regional, and

state fishery management plans or programs, in order to:

• Reduce confusion caused by having multiple

names for the same fishery

• Provide a “common name” for a fishery that can

be used by NOAA Fisheries, fishers, and state and

regional fishery managers

• Allow NOAA Fisheries to more easily collect

information on fishery statistics, such as the

number of participants, target species landed,

length of fishing season, etc. and

• Help NOAA Fisheries meet its statutory obligations

by coordinating registration under the MMPA with

existing fishery management programs.

In the future, NOAA Fisheries may have sufficient

information to subdivide certain commercial fisheries into

components that have different levels of impact to

marine mammal stocks. This approach may help NOAA

Fisheries focus management actions on certain “hot

spots” where there are documented high impacts to

marine mammal stocks. NOAA Fisheries will continue to

seek public comment on the optimum way to define

commercial fisheries and will modify the LOF as necessary

to reflect changes in U.S. fisheries.

2000 List of Fisheries

The 2000 LOF was published on April 26, 2000 (65 FR

24448). There were no changes from the 1999 LOF. A

table providing a list of all U.S. commercial fisheries was

published in the Federal Register notice announcing the

LOF for 2000. A list of the Category I and II commercial

fisheries from the 2001 LOF which can be found in

Appendix C, Table 1.

2001 List of Fisheries

The proposed LOF for 2001 is expected to be final in the

summer of 2001. Information on the 2001 LOF and other

annual LOF can be found at the following website:

http://nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/PR2/fisheries_interactions/

list_of_fisheries.html

Monitoring Programs

NOAA Fisheries' observer programs are one method used

to determine the impacts that U.S. commercial fisheries

have on marine mammal stocks and to place fisheries in

the appropriate LOF Category. The objectives of
page 52 interaction with commercial fisheries

Recognizing that insufficient resources existed for the

development of take reduction plans for all stocks

affected by commercial fisheries, NOAA Fisheries

followed the guidance in section 118(f)(3) of the MMPA

in prioritizing the establishment of take reduction teams

to address stocks of greatest concern. As a result,

NOAA fisheries initially formed five Take Reduction

Teams (TRTs):

• Gulf of Maine Harbor Porpoise TRT

• Mid-Atlantic Harbor Porpoise TRT

• Atlantic Offshore Cetacean TRT

• Atlantic Large Whale TRT

• Pacific Offshore Cetacean TRT

NOAA Fisheries plans to convene the bottlenose

dolphin TRT in the summer of 2001 to address incidental

takes of the Western North Atlantic coastal stock of

bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) in a variety of

Atlantic coastal fisheries, including the U.S. Mid-Atlantic

coastal gillnet fishery, North Carolina inshore gillnet

fishery, Southeast Atlantic gillnet fishery, Atlantic blue

crab trap/pot fishery, Mid-Atlantic haul/beach seine

fishery, North Carolina long haul seine fishery, North

Carolina roe mullet stop net fishery, and Mid-Atlantic

pound net fishery. Additional TRTs will be formed as TRTs

are closed out and existing funding becomes available.

Gulf of Maine Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan

NOAA Fisheries established the Gulf of Maine Harbor

Porpoise Take Reduction Team (HPTRT) on February 12,

1996, to address incidental takes of the Gulf of Maine/

Bay of Fundy stock of harbor porpoise (Phocoena

phocoena) in the Northeast multispecies sink gillnet

fishery. The HPTRT included representatives of the sink

gillnet fishery, NOAA Fisheries, Marine Mammal

Commission, state marine resource management

agencies, New England Fishery Management Council

(NEFMC), environmental organizations, and academic

and scientific organizations.

Description of the Fishery

The Northeast multispecies sink gillnet fishery is a

Category I fishery managed by NOAA Fisheries and the

New England Fishery Management Council under the

Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (as

authorized by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, or Magnuson-Stevens Act).

Fishers participating in the Northeast multispecies sink

gillnet fishery operate year-round in the nearshore and

offshore waters from Maine to Rhode Island. They set

their nets along the sea floor to target groundfish;

specifically cod, haddock, hake, pollock, flounder,

monkfish, and dogfish. Vessels are typically small (30-50

ft or 9-15 m) and operate from ports throughout New

England. Each vessel sets between 40 and 200 nets,

depending on the target species. Each net is 50

estimated 22,500 commercial fishers that fall under the

requirements of the MMAP. Fishers operating in integrated

fisheries do not need to register separately under the

MMAP or pay a $25 federal registration fee.

If registration of a specific fishery has not been integrated,

owners of vessels or gear operating in that fishery must

register with NOAA Fisheries Regional Office in which their

fishery operates. NOAA Fisheries Regional Offices annually

send renewal packets to participants in Category I and II

fisheries that have previously registered with NOAA

Fisheries; however, it is the responsibility of fishers to ensure

that registration or renewal forms are submitted to NOAA

Fisheries at least 30 days in advance of fishing. If fishers

have not received a renewal packet by January 1 or are

registering for the first time, requests for registration forms

should be sent to the appropriate NOAA Fisheries Regional

Office. NOAA Fisheries will send the vessel owner an

Authorization Certificate, a program decal, and reporting

forms within 30 days of receiving the registration form and

application fee.

Reporting Requirements for Commercial Fishers

All vessel owners or operators or fishers (in the case of

non-vessel fisheries) in Category I, II, or III fisheries must

report all mortalities or injuries of marine mammals that

occur incidental to their commercial fishing operations.

In 1999, NOAA Fisheries received 78 reports of injuries

and/or mortalities from commercial fishing vessel

operators and 79 reports for 2000. Appendix C summarizes self-reported injuries and mortalities by species and by

fishery for 1999 and 2000.

Take Reduction Teams and Take Reduction Plans

Requirements for the Development and Implementation

of Take Reduction Plans

Section 118(f) of the MMPA requires that NOAA Fisheries

develop and implement take reduction plans designed to

assist in the recovery or prevent the depletion of strategic

marine mammal stocks (see Chapter 1- Stock Assessments) that interact with Category I or II fisheries. The

immediate goal of a take reduction plan is to reduce,

within six months of its implementation, the mortality and

serious injury of strategic stocks incidentally taken in the

course of commercial fishing operations to below the PBR

levels established for those stocks. The long-term goal of a

plan is to reduce, within five years of its implementation,

the incidental mortality and serious injury of all marine

mammals taken in commercial fishing operations to

insignificant levels approaching a zero mortality and

serious injury rate, taking into account the economics of

the fishery, the available existing technology, and existing

state or regional management plans. More information on

take reduction teams and implementation of take

reduction plans can be found in the 1997 MMPA Annual

Report.
interaction with commercial fisheries page 53

represented a comprehensive approach to the

problem of harbor porpoise incidental take. The plan is

summarized in the 1997 MMPA Annual Report.

Status of the Plan

Soon after the HPTRT submitted its plan to NOAA

Fisheries, the NEFMC implemented Framework

Adjustment 19 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery

Management Plan. This action opened the Mid-Coast

area to gillnet fishing with pingers during November

and December. Because the NEFMC actions altered

the assumptions upon which the HPTRT’s consensus

proceedings were based, NOAA Fisheries modified the

HPTRT’s draft plan to be consistent with the fishery

management measures and ensure the goal of the

plan would still be met.

On August 13, 1997, NOAA Fisheries published a

Proposed Rule to implement the HPTRT (62 FR 43302). In

the Proposed Rule, NOAA Fisheries also proposed

changes and provided updates to several nonregulatory aspects of the Implementation Plan.

Since the publication of NOAA Fisheries’ Proposed Rule,

new information on the bycatch levels of harbor

porpoise became available that strongly indicated that

NOAA Fisheries’ proposed take reduction measures

would not reduce harbor porpoise bycatch in the Gulf

of Maine to levels below the PBR level. However, results

of the Spring 1997 pinger experiment indicated that

pingers appeared to be a viable management

strategy throughout the year. In December 1997,

NOAA Fisheries reconvened the HPTRT to review this

new information and to solicit additional recommendations for more effective bycatch reduction measures.

To achieve this goal, the HPTRT recommended

tentative time/area closures and periods during which

pingers should be used.

NOAA Fisheries incorporated the new information and

the team’s recommendations in a second Proposed

Rule published on September 11, 1998 (63 FR 48670).

This Proposed Rule also incorporated harbor porpoise

take reduction measures for Mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet

fisheries, as recommended by the Mid-Atlantic Take

Reduction Team (see next section). The Final Rule

implementing take reduction measures for both the

Gulf of Maine and mid-Atlantic was published on

December 2, 1998 (63 FR 66464). For the Gulf of Maine

component, the Final Rule established a series of time

and area closures where pingers are required, or

where complete closures will be in effect. It also

requires training and certification for fishers using

pingers. The elements of the Final Rule as it pertains to

the Northeast Multispecies sink gillnet fishery are

summarized in Table 1 (following page). The fishery has

also interacted with Northern right whales (Eubalaena

glacialis). These interactions are addressed through

the Atlantic Large Whale TRT section later in this

fathoms (300 ft or 90 m) long and nets are tied togetherin

strings of 1-30 nets. The fishery currently includes

approximately 341 vessels.

Description of the Marine Mammal Bycatch

Incidental mortality of harbor porpoise in this fishery has

been of concern since the late 1980s. In 1990, an

observer program was started by NOAA Fisheries to

investigate marine mammal takes in the Northeast

multispecies sink gillnet fishery. There have been 423

harbor porpoise mortalities related to this fishery

observed between 1990 and 1998 and one harbor

porpoise released alive and uninjured. Observer

coverage has been between 1% and 6 % for the years

1990 to 1998. Bycatch in the Northern Gulf of Maine

occurs primarily from June to September, while in the

Southern Gulf of Maine bycatch occurs from January to

May and September to December. Average estimated

harbor porpoise mortality and serious injury in the

Northeast sink gillnet fishery during 1994-1998 was 1,163

animals (C.V. = 0.11). Estimated annual bycatch (CV in

parentheses) from the fishery during 1990-1998 was

2,900 (0.32) in 1990, 2,000 (0.35) in 1991, 1,200 (0.21) in

1992, 1,400 (0.18) in 1993, 2,100 (0.18) in 1994, 1,400

(0.27) in 1995, 1,200 (0.25) in 1996, 782 (0.22) in 1997, and

332 (0.42) in 1998. (C.V.= control volume)

A new abundance survey conducted in July and August

of 1999 led to a revised abundance estimate of 89,000

(CV=0.22) harbor porpoise, and a corresponding PBR of

747 animals. The revised abundance estimate and

bycatch analysis for 1999 will be presented in the draft

2001 Stock Assessment Report for the Gulf of Maine/Bay

of Fundy stock of harbor porpoise.

Although the primary species of concern for bycatch

reduction measures in this fishery has been harbor

porpoise, this fishery also has incidental mortality of the

Western North Atlantic stock of Atlantic white-sided

dolphins (Lagenorhynchus acutus). Between 1990 and

1998 there were 40 mortalities observed in the Northeast

mutlispecies sink gillnet fishery. Observer coverage has

been between 1% and 6% for the years 1990 to 1998.

Most white-sided dolphins have been taken in waters

South of Cape Ann during April to December. In recent

years, the majority of takes have been East and South of

Cape Cod. Average annual estimated fishery-related

mortality during 1994-1998 was 122 white-sided dolphins

per year (CV = 0.31). Estimated annual fishery-related

mortalities (CV in parentheses) were 49 (0.46) in 1991,

154 (0.35) in 1992, 205 (0.31) in 1993, 240 (0.51) in 1994,

80 (1.16) in 1995, 114 (0.61) in 1996, 140 (0.61) in 1997,

and 34 (0.92) in 1998. The PBR for this stock is 184 animals

per year. (See Chapter 1- Stock Assessments)

Elements of the Team’s Draft Plan

The HPTRT submitted a consensus draft plan to NOAA

Fisheries on August 8, 1996. The team’s draft plan
interaction with commercial fisheries page 54

analysis, which showed that the harbor porpoise take

was below PBR. The team was also presented with a

revised and increased PBR level based on the 1999

survey. NOAA Fisheries requested the HPTRT focus on

reaching the long-term goal of the take reduction plan-

- reduce human-caused mortality and serious injury to

levels approaching a zero mortality and serious injury

rate. The team made recommendations to NOAA

Fisheries, including establishing a program in cooperation with the states to certify that pingers are operational, developing a schedule for penalties for noncompliance with the plan, notifying permit holders

about problems with non-compliance, and moving the

southern boundaries of the South of Cape Cod closure

to include takes observed in 2000.

Mid-Atlantic Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Team

NOAA Fisheries established the Mid-Atlantic Take

Reduction Team (MATRT) on February 25, 1997, to

address interactions between harbor porpoise

(Phocoena phocoena) and the Mid-Atlantic coastal

gillnet fishery. The Mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet fishery also

has bycatch of another strategic marine mammal

stock, Atlantic coastal bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops

truncatus). Initially this team was to address both

bottlenose dolphin and harbor porpoise mortality.

However, the team agreed that the development of a

TRT for bottlenose dolphins should be delayed to collect

more information on stock abundance and identification, and incidental mortality levels. As a result, the

team was changed to the Mid-Atlantic Harbor Porpoise

TRT (MATRT). NOAA Fisheries intends to convene a

separate TRT for bottlenose dolphins in 2001.

Description of the Fisheries

This fishery includes all gillnet fishing from 72° 30’ W

longitude (the northeastern tip of Long Island) to the

North Carolina-South Carolina border, except those

fisheries that operate solely within rivers, bays, and

estuaries.

Target species of this fishery include, but are not limited

to: Atlantic croaker, Atlantic mackerel, Atlantic

sturgeon, black drum, bluefish, herring, menhaden,

scup, shad, striped bass, sturgeon, weakfish, white

perch, yellow perch, dogfish, and monkfish. This fishery

is estimated to have more than 655 active participants,

many of whom target different species seasonally as

the fish stocks migrate North and South along the

Atlantic coast. The mesh size used in this fishery varies

widely, from 5 inches (12.5 cm) for shad to 12 inches (30

cm) for monkfish. These interstate fisheries are

managed in coordination with the Atlantic States

Marine Fisheries Commission via state and federal

Fishery Management Plans.

The HPTRT met December 14-15, 1999 to review

elements of the harbor porpoise take reduction plan,

discuss how the plan was working, identify areas of

improvement, and reach consensus, where possible,

on approaches to address those aspects of the plan

that need improvement. NOAA Fisheries reported

that the agency was encouraged by the reduction in

takes since the implementation of the plan in

December of 1998, but needed to determine how

the reduction in takes was accomplished (i.e.,

through the plan regulations, fishery management

actions, variable harbor porpoise behavior, or a

combination of factors). A large portion of the

meeting was spent reporting to the HPTRT on

activities since the team last met in December 1997.

The HPTRT also submitted consensus recommendations addressing pinger operation and testing, data

use and reliability, effort measurement, clarification

of the impact of discards on the bycatch estimates,

enforcement, analysis of pinger data, gear studies,

analysis of and involvement in fishery management

plans, allowing higher frequency pingers, and

investigating reflective gillnet.

The HPTRT met December 12-14, 2000 for an annual

review of plan implementation. The team was

presented with the results of the 1999 bycatch

Table 1. Time/area closures and periods of required

pinger use for the Northeast Multispecies sink gillnet

fishery as required by the final regulations

implementing the Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction

Plan.

Northeast Area: Aug.15

to Sep.13

Closed

Mid-coast Area: Sep. 15

to May 31

Closed, gillnets with

pingers allowed

Massachusetts Bay Area:

Dec. 1 to Feb. 28/29

Mar. 1-31

Apr. 1 to May 31

Closed, gillnets with

pingers allowed

Closed

Closed, gillnets with

pingers allowed

Cape Cod South Area:

Dec. 1 to Feb. 28/29

Mar. 1-31

Apr. 1 to May 31

Closed, gillnets with

pingers allowed

Closed

Closed, gillnets with

pingers allowed

Offshore Area:

Nov. 1 to May 31 Closed, gillnets with

pingers allowed

Cashes Ledge Area:

Feb. 1-28/29 Closed
interaction with commercial fisheries page 55

(following page) summarize the gear restriction and

time-area closures put into effect for large and small

mesh gillnet under the final rule implementing the MidAtlantic Take Reduction Plan.

The MATRT met January 13-14, 2000 to review elements

of the harbor porpoise take reduction plan, discuss how

the plan is working, identify areas of improvement, and

reach consensus, where possible, on approaches to

address those aspects of the plan that need improvement. NOAA Fisheries reported that the agency was

encouraged with the reduced take levels since the

implementation of the plan in December of 1998, but

needed to determine the causes of reduction (i.e.,

through the plan regulations, fishery management

actions, variable harbor porpoise behavior, or a

combination of factors). The MATRT also submitted

consensus recommendations addressing: observer

coverage, noncompliance with the requirement to

carry an observer, the ability of the MATRT to review

proposed rules, adjust ment of the Delaware Bay line,

redefinition of small mesh fishery as greater than 5.5 in

to less than 7 in, that the fishing industry research

mitigation strategies for harbor porpoise and bottlenose

dolphin including pingers and reflective gillnetting, that

NOAA Fisheries provide advice on mitigation strategies,

and investigating interactions between recreational

gear and harbor porpoise and bottlenose dolphins.

Description of the Marine Mammal Bycatch

The offshore portion of the U.S. Mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet

fishery that targets monkfish and dogfish has been

observed since 1993. This fishery, which extends from

North Carolina to New York, is a combination of small

vessel fisheries that target a variety of fish species.

Between 1995 and 1998, between 3% and 5% of this

fishery was observed (in terms of tons of fish landed).

Between 1995 to 1998, respectively, 6, 19, 32, and 53

harbor porpoise were observed. Observed effort has

been concentrated off of New Jersey and scattered

between Delaware and North Carolina from the beach to

50 miles off of the beach. Documented bycatch

occurred between December and May, with the majority

in February and March and in New Jersey, Maryland, and

North Carolina. The fisheries responsible for these

mortalities were targeting either dogfish or monkfish. The

estimated annual mortality (CV in parentheses) attributed

to this fishery was 103 (0.57) in 1995, 311 (0.31) in 1996, 572

(0.35) in 1997, and 446 (0.36) in 1998. Average estimated

harbor porpoise mortality and serious injury from the MidAtlantic coastal gillnet fishery during 1995 to 1998 was 358

(CV=0.20). (See Chapter 1- Stock Assessments- for more

information on marine mammals stocks.)

Elements of the Team’s Report

The MATRT submitted a report to NOAA Fisheries on August

25, 1997. Although the team did not reach consensus on

a draft plan, the team’s report incorporated both

consensus and non-consensus recommendations for

harbor porpoise bycatch reduction measures, as well as

research and data collection recommendations for

coastal bottlenose dolphins. Take reduction measures

recommended by the team are summarized in the 1997

MMPA Annual Report.

Status of the Plan

NOAA Fisheries combined the take reduction measures

recommended for harbor porpoise in the mid-Atlantic with

measures recommended for harbor porpoise in the Gulf

of Maine and proposed a combined Harbor Porpoise Take

Reduction Plan on September 11, 1998 (63 FR 48670). The

Final Rule implementing the plan was published on

December 2, 1998 (63 FR 66464).

The most significant change from the Proposed Rule to the

Final Rule was the application of management measures

in the small mesh fishery. Stranding data and other

bycatch information suggested that small mesh between

5 inches (12.5 cm) and 7 inches (17.5 cm) may be a

source of bycatch. For fisheries using mesh less than 5

inches (12.5 cm), limited data where available to to

suggest that a bycatch problem exists, yet NOAA Fisheries

will continue to collect and evaluate data from this

segment of the fishery to determine whether further take

reduction measures are necessary. Tables 2 and 3

Table 2. Gear requirements for the small mesh gillnet

fishery (includes gillnet with mesh size greater than 5

inches (12.7 cm) to less than 7 inches (17.5cm)

required by the Final Rule implementing the MidAtlantic Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan.

Floatline Length:

New Jersey Waters

Southern Mid-Atlantic Waters

less than or equal to

3,000 ft (914.4 m)

less than or equal to

2,118 ft (645.6 m)

Twine Size:

All Mid-Atlantic Waters greater than or equal

to .031 in (.81 mm)

Net Cap:

All Mid-Atlantic Waters 45 nets

Net Size: A net must be no

longer than 300 ft

(91.4 m)

Net Tagging: Requires all nets to

be tagged by Jan. 1,

2000

Time/Area Closures:

New Jersey Mudhole Closed from Feb. 15 -

Mar. 15
interaction with commercial fisheries page 56

researching interactions between harbor porpoise

and recreational fisheries, and data analysis.

Atlantic Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Plan

NOAA Fisheries convened the Atlantic Offshore

Cetacean Take Reduction Team (AOCTRT) on May 23,

1996 (61 FR 40819), to address interactions between

strategic marine mammal stocks and the Atlantic

pelagic driftnet, pair trawl, and longline fisheries for

swordfish, tuna and sharks. The AOCTRT includes

representatives of each of the three fisheries,

environmental and conservation groups, several

states, the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council,

independent fisheries, marine mammal biological

community, and NOAA Fisheries.

The pelagic pair trawl fishery ceased operating in 1996

when NOAA Fisheries rejected a petition to consider

pair trawl gear as an authorized gear type in the

Atlantic tunas fishery.

On October 20, 1998, NOAA Fisheries proposed

regulations to prohibit the use of driftnets in the Atlantic

swordfish fishery and to eliminate any incidental catch

allowance for swordfish in any other driftnet fishery.

This Final Rule, under the authority of the MagnusonStevens Act and the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act,

was published in January 1999 (50 CFR 630).

On October 27, 2000, NOAA Fisheries issued a Proposed

Rule redefining Delaware Bay in the list of exempted

waters to include waters landward of the 72 COLREGS line

(65 FR 64415). Members of the MATRT recommended by

consensus that NOAA Fisheries redefine the list of

exempted waters because harbor porpoise stranding and

observer data did not justify subjecting fishers in Delaware

Bay to gear restrictions. The Final Rule exempting

Delaware Bay was published in the Federal Register on

January 11, 2001 (66 FR 2336).

The MATRT met November 27-30, 2000 for an annual

review of plan implementation. The MATRT was presented

with the results of the 1999 bycatch analysis, which

showed that the harbor porpoise take was below the PBR

level. The MATRT was also presented with a revised and

increased PBR based on the 1999 survey. NOAA Fisheries

requested that the MATRT turn their attention to reaching

the long-term goal of the take reduction plan, to reduce

human-caused mortality and serious injury to levels

approaching a zero mortality and serious injury rate. The

MATRT made a number of recommendations to NOAA

Fisheries, including soliciting MATRT input on regulatory

changes, coordinating between fishery management

plan measures and take reduction plan measures,

modifying and standardizing gear definitions, improving

observer programs, research and education

measures that may result in additional bycatch reduction,

Table 3. Gear requirements for the large mesh gillnet fishery (includes gillnet with mesh size

greater than 7 in (17.78 cm) to 18 in (45.72 cm) required by the Final Rule implementing the

Mid-Atlantic Take Reduction Plan.

Floatline Length:

New Jersey Mudhole*

New Jersey Waters (excluding the

Mudhole*)

Southern Mid-Atlantic Waters

less than or equal to 3,900 ft (1188.7m)

less than or equal to 4,800 ft (1463.0 m)

less than or equal to 3,900 ft (1188.7 m)

Twine Size:

All Mid-Atlantic Waters greater than or equal to .90 mm (.035 inches)

Tie Downs:

All Mid-Atlantic Waters Required

Net Cap:

All Mid-Atlantic Waters 80 nets

Net Size: A net must be no longer than 300 ft (91.4 m)

Net Tagging: Requires all nets to be tagged by Jan.1, 2000

Time Area Closures:

New Jersey Waters to 72 degrees 30'W

longitude (including the Mudhole*)

New Jersey Mudhole*

Southern Mid-Atlantic Waters

(MD, DE, VA, NC) to 72 degress 30'W

longitude

Closed from Apr. 1 - 20

Closed from Feb. 15 - Mar. 15

Closed from Feb. 15 - Mar. 15

*New Jersey Mudhole: area off New Jersey with particularly high harbor porpoise bycatch.

Defined as an area south of 40o'30, north of 30o55', east of the coastline, and west of 73o20'.
page 57

Table 4. Closures and restrictions on the Northeast

multispecies sink gillnet fishery required by the Atlantic

Large Whale Take Reduction Plan.

Location Dates Requirements

Great South Channel

Restricted Area

April 1 - Jun. 30 Prohibited:

exception in the

"sliver area"

Great South Channel

Restricted Area

July 1 - Mar. 31 Restricted

Cape Cod Bay

Restricted Area

Jan. 1 - May 15 Prohibited

Cape Cod Bay

Restricted Area

May 16 - Dec. 31 Restricted in

federal portion

All other areas in the

NE Atlantic

year round Restricted

interaction with commercial fisheries

Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team

On August 6, 1996, NOAA Fisheries established the

Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team (ALWTRT) to

address the incidental bycatch of large baleen whales,

primarily the Northern right whale but also humpback,

fin, and minke whales in the following fisheries: the Gulf

of Maine/U.S. mid-Atlantic lobster trap/pot fishery, the

Gulf of Maine sink gillnet fishery, the mid-Atlantic coastal

gillnet fishery, and the Southeastern U.S. Atlantic shark

gillnet fishery. These whales are considered strategic

stocks under the MMPA because they are listed as

endangered under the ESA, and/or because the level

of human-caused mortality is greater than the

calculated PBR levels.

The ALWTRT includes representatives from each fishery,

NOAA Fisheries, state marine resource management

agencies, the New England Fishery Management

Council, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council,

the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, the

Marine Mammal Commission, environmental organizations, and academic and scientific organizations.

Description of the Fisheries

Lobster Trap/Pot Fishery. This fishery is managed by both 

individual states and by NOAA Fisheries, under the

Lobster Fishery Management Plan (as authorized by the

Magnuson-Stevens Act). This fishery operates in

nearshore and offshore waters in the Gulf of Maine and

the mid-Atlantic. Vessels used in the inshore fishery are

typically under 15 m (50 ft) in length and have a crew

of one to four people. Vessels used in the offshore

fishery are typically between 15-30 m (50-100 ft) in

length and have a crew of three to five people.

Offshore vessels generally fish in waters up to 360 m

Description of the Fisheries

The Atlantic swordfish fishery is managed by NOAA

Fisheries under the Atlantic Swordfish Fishery Management

Plan (as authorized by the Magnuson-Stevens Act) and

under the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA). ATCA

directs NOAA Fisheries to regulate the swordfish fishery as

required by the International Commission for the

Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) and under the

Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan (as

authorized by the Magnuson-Stevens Act) for Atlantic

Tunas, Swordfish, and Shark. The Atlantic tuna fishery is also

managed under the authority of ATCA, which authorizes

NOAA Fisheries to regulate the tuna fishery as required by

ICCAT. The Atlantic shark fishery is managed by NOAA

Fisheries under the Atlantic Swordfish Fishery Management

Plan.

Longline Fishery. The Atlantic longline fishery operates . 

from the Gulf of Mexico Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)

and the Caribbean to the Grand Banks. Longlines consist

of a continuous monofilament mainline suspended from

the surface by a series of floats. Gangions with baited

hooks are attached to the mainline at regular intervals.

The mainline averages about 40 km (25 mi), but may be as

long as 88km (55mi). There are approximately 250 active

participants in the fishery.

Description of the Marine Mammal Bycatch

The fishery has taken Risso’s dolphin, spotted dolphin,

spinner dolphin, common dolphin, and bottlenose dolphin.

Since 1992, this fishery has been monitored with about 2%

coverage in terms of trips observed (5% was agreed to

under ICAAT but has not been achieved).

Status of the Plan

The recommendations submitted by the AOCTRT

regarding operation of the pelagic longline fishery were

partially addressed under a Fishery Management Plan for

Highly Migratory Species (HMS FMP). The Final Rule

implementing the FMP was published May 28, 1999 (64 FR

29090). The rule included the team’s recommendation

that the length of line set be limited to no more than 24

nautical miles (44.5 km) in the mid-Atlantic Bight from July 1,

1999 to June 30, 2000. No longline fishing is allowed in the

Northeastern U.S. closed area in June, and all marine

mammals hooked or entangled must be immediately

released and fishing operations moved at least 1 nautical

mile (2 km) before resuming fishing. The rule also

implemented a limited access program for the fishery. The

only regulatory requirement recommended by the

AOCTRT that is not being implemented under the HMS FMP

is the reduction of the maximum soak time (by retrieving

gear in the order it was set). There were concerns

expressed by participants in the fishery that returning to

the point where the gear was set would be costly (in terms

of fuel costs) and may not be safe in rough seas.
Interaction with commercial fisheries page 58

Table 7. Closures and restrictions on the Southeast U.S.

driftnet fishery required by the Atlantic Large Whale Take

Reduction Plan.

Location Dates Requirements

Southeast U.S.

restricted area

Nov. 15 -

Mar. 31

Driftnet gear prohibited;

strikenets are permitted under

certain conditions

Southeast

observer area

Nov. 15 -

Mar. 31

Driftnet vessels required to

carry observers if fishing in

Southeast observer area.

Driftnet gear required to be

marked.

Description of the Marine Mammal Bycatch

These numbers are primarily based on sightings of

entangled marine mammals. Because some animals

may drown or be killed immediately, the actual number

may be higher. For more information on these marine

mammal stocks, see Chapter 1 on the Marine Mammal

Stock Assessment Program. Please see Appendix C for

more information on marine mammal bycatch (data

obtained from the Center of Coastal Studies).

Status of the Plan

A Final Rule implementing the ALWTRP was published on

February 16, 1999 (64 FR 7529). On April 9, 1999 (64 FR

17292) , NOAA Fisheries stayed the gear marking

requirements for all fisheries regulated by the ALWTRP

until November 1, 1999. On December 30, 1999 (64 FR

73434), NOAA Fisheries extended the suspension until

November 1, 2000. On November 22, 2000 (65 FR

70316), NOAA Fisheries extended the suspension until

new gear marking requirements are implemented by a

new interim Final Rule. On December 21, 2000 (65 FR

80368), an interim final rule implementing the ALWTRT

recommended modifications to the ALWTRP to further

reduce whale entanglements was published.

Elements of the Interim Final Plan

The Interim Final Rule modified gear requirements to

meet the goals of the MMPA without damaging a vital

fishing industry. The use of gear modifications to

minimize the risks of entangling large whales will be one

of the keys to the long-term success of the take

reduction plan. In addition, gear covered under this

plan must be marked so that the type of gear that

entangles cetaceans can be identified. The ALWTRT

developed gear technologies that are believed to

reduce the likelihood that cetaceans will become

entangled, or increase the likelihood that a cetacean

will break free from the gear if entangled. The summary

Interim Final Rule includes the following measures:

(1200 ft) deep. There are approximately 14,600 permit

holders, including 4,000 vessels that fish in offshore waters.

(See Table 5 below for more information on closures of the

lobster trap/pot fishery by the ALWTRT.)

Note: See the Northern right whale section in Chapter 2-

Conservation and Recovery.

Gulf of Maine and Mid-Atlantic Gillnet Fisheries. See the

description of these fisheries under the sections of this

chapter on the Gulf of Maine harbor porpoise take

reduction plans.

T6 t able . Restrictions on the Mid-Atlantic coastal gillne

fishery required by the Atlantic Large Whale Take

Reduction Plan.

Location Dates Requirements

All areas Dec. 1 - Mar.

31

Anchored sink gillnet

gear restricted

All areas year-round Restrictions on

hauling, stowing, and

setting gillnet gear

Southeast Shark Gillnet Fishery. This fishery is regulated by 

NOAA Fisheries under the Atlantic Sharks Fishery Management Plan (as authorized by the Magnuson-Stevens Act).

It operates primarily in federal waters from the Florida Keys

to Savannah, Georgia. Nets are typically 300 m (1000 ft)

to 1.6 km (1 mi) in length and are set and fished overnight.

There are approximately 12 active fishers in the fishery.

Table 5. Closures and restrictions on lobster trap/pot

fishery by the final regulations implementing the

Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan.

Location Dates Requirements

Great South Channel

Restricted Area

April 1 - Jun. 30 Lobster gear

prohibited

Great South Channel

Restricted Area

July 1 - Mar. 31 Lobster gear

restricted

Cape Cod Bay

Restricted Area

Jan. 1 - May 15 Lobster gear

restricted

Stellwagen

Bank/Jeffrey's Ledge

year-round Lobster gear

restricted

All other areas year-round Lobster gear

restricted
page 59 interaction with commercial fisheries

filament nylon and are 1.8 km (1 nm) in length. They

typically have a stretched mesh size from 45-55 cm (18-

22 in). Extender lines, which attach the net to buoys at

the surface, suspend the net below the surface. The

net is set at night and retrieved at dawn. There are

about 100 active fishers in this fishery.

Description of the Marine Mammal Bycatch

The mortality estimates from observer data available

through 1998 are summarized in the 2000 Pacific Marine

Mammal Stock Assessment Report. After the 1997

implementation of the take reduction plan, which

included skipper education workshops and required the

use of pingers and minimum 6-fathom extenders,

overall cetacean entanglement rates in the drift gillnet

fishery dropped considerably. Recent data suggest all

marine mammals stocks, including sperm whales (CA/

OR/WA stock) are below PBR and most species are

below 10% of PBR.

Elements of the Team’s Draft Plan

On June 27, 1996, the PCTRT reached consensus on a

draft plan. The PCTRT submitted its draft plan to NOAA

Fisheries on August 15, 1996. Take reduction measures

recommended by the team are summarized in the

1997 MMPA Annual Report.

Status of the Plan

As recommended by the team, a pinger experiment

was conducted in the fishery during the 1996/1997

fishing season, resulting in cetacean entanglement

rates being 75% lower in nets that had pingers. Based

on these preliminary findings, NOAA Fisheries and the

PCTRT both agreed that pingers should be deployed on

all nets. This provision was included in the Proposed Rule

to implement the plan on February 14, 1997 (62 FR 6931)

and in the Final Rule implementing the plan on October

3, 1997 (62 FR 51805). A technical amendment to the

Final Rule was published on May 21, 1998 (63 FR 27860)

to correct and clarify the Final Rule. In addition, an

Interim Final Rule was published on January 22, 1999, to

allow fishers the flexibility of using longer lanyards to

attach pingers to the leadline and floatline to address

safety concerns since NOAA Fisheries determined that

the same level of effectiveness should be provided by

allowing longer lanyards to be used. The Final Rule, as

amended, contains the following regulatory provisions:

- minimum six fathom (36 ft) net buoy line

extender length (length of the line from the

surface of the water to the top of the net)

- mandatory fleetwide use of pingers on the

floatline (top of the net) and leadline (bottom

of the net) during all fishing operations and

- mandatory requirement for all vessel owners

and captains to attend skipper education

- Existing area closures for Cape Cod Bay and

Great South Channel remain. State water lobster

fishermen: No change except for option from

Gear Technology List for buoy line weak link to be

changed from 1,100 lbs to 600 lbs maximum

breaking strength and a requirement that link must

be knotless. Gear marking is not required.

- Near and offshore lobster waters to be

redefined for consistency with nearshore/offshore

and North/South boundaries contained in the

American Lobster Fishery regulations.

- Lobster Gear: (1) knotless weak link at buoy with

600 lbs. breaking strength; (2) multiple trap trawls

only- single traps are not allowed; (3) limit of one

buoy line on all trawls up to /incl. five traps; and

(4) offshore lobster gear must use knotless weak

link at buoy with breaking strength of 3780 lbs.

- Gillnet Gear: (1) knotless weak link at buoy with a

breaking strength of 1,100 lbs; (2) weak links

placed in floatline at the center of each panel; (3)

net strings of 20 net panels or less be anchored

with one of three optional anchoring systems.

- All Gear (except State water lobster gear) must

be marked midway on the buoy line.

Pacific Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Plan

NOAA Fisheries convened the Pacific Offshore Cetacean

Take Reduction Team (PCTRT) on February 12, 1996 to

address takes of short-finned pilot whales (Globicephala

macrorhynchus), mesoplodont beaked whales

(Mesoplodon spp.), Baird’s beaked whales (Berardius

bairdii), Cuvier’s beaked whales (Ziphius cavirostris), pygmy

sperm whales (Kogia breviceps), sperm whales (Physeter

macrocephalus), and humpback whales (Megaptera

novaeangliae) in the California/Oregon drift gillnet fishery

which targets thresher shark and swordfish.

Description of the Fishery

The CA/OR drift gillnet fishery is regulated primarily by the

California Department of Fish and Game under a limited

access permit system. The Oregon Department of Fish

and Wildlife issues up to ten “unlimited” landing permits,

although only eight permits were issued in 1999. The fishery

operates from the U.S./Mexico border to waters off

Oregon and Washington. The fishery is closed from

February through April. From May through August, drift

gillnets cannot be used to catch swordfish or thresher

sharks within 75 nautical miles (nm) of shore. Only limited

restrictions are in place from August through January.

Drift gillnets are tied at one end to a vessel and drift with

the current at the other end. Most nets are made of multiYear Right Humpback Minke ear Fin Unidentified

1999 6(0) 8(1) 0(4) 3(0) 2(0)

2000 6(1) 13(1) 2(1) 0(0) 0(1)

Total 12(1) 21(2) 2(5) 3(0) 2(1)

Table 8. Entangled Large Whales- Alive vs. (Dead)
interaction with commercial fisheries page 60

However, recognizing that determining which injuries

are likely to lead to mortality, and thus should be

considered serious, is tremendously difficult, NOAA

Fisheries defined serious injury more broadly, as...

“. . .any injury that will likely result in mortality.”

On April 1-2, 1997, a workshop was held to explore this

issue and to begin developing a broad range of

guidelines that could be used to determine which

marine mammals entangled in fishing gear or injured

incidental to fishing operations should be considered

seriously injured as a result of the encounter. (For more

background on this issue, and a summary of the

workshop’s findings, see the 1997 MMPA Annual

Report). The results of this workshop were published as

a NOAA technical memorandum. Based on guidance

from this workshop, NOAA Fisheries will be reviewing

incidental marine mammal injuries for several fisheries to

determine which injured animals should be considered

“seriously injured”. These determinations were

published in the Marine Mammal Stock Assessment

Reports for 2000 and considered in the 2001 LOF.

Authorization for the Incidental Taking of Threatened or

Endangered Marine Mammals

Section 101(a)(5)(E) of the MMPA allows for the take of

marine mammals listed as endangered or threatened

under the ESA incidental to commercial fishing

operations, if it can be determined that:

- Incidental mortality and serious injury will have a

negligible impact on affected species or stock

- A recovery plan for that species or stock has

been developed or is being developed and

- Where required under section 118, a monitor

ing program has been established, vessels are

registered, and a take reduction plan has been

developed or is being developed.

In order to determine whether commercial fishing

activities are having a negligible impact on endangered and threatened stocks of marine mammals,

NOAA Fisheries evaluates the above criteria. The

permits issued under 101(a)(5)(E) in 1995 (August 31,

1995; 60 FR 45299) expired at the end of 1998. No

permits were issued for stocks of marine mammals in

the Atlantic Ocean because a negligible impact

determination could not be made. NOAA Fisheries

issued a three-year permit to authorize the incidental,

but not intentional, take of the following four stocks of

threatened or endangered marine mammals by the

California/Oregon drift gillnet fishery (October 30, 2000;

65 FR 64670).

- Fin whale, California/Oregon/Washington

- Humpback whale, California/Oregon/

Washington-Mexico

- Steller sea lion, Eastern

- Sperm whale, California/Oregon/Washington

In conjunction with the publication of the Final Rule, NOAA

Fisheries has also taken steps to implement the nonregulatory aspects of the plan. NOAA Fisheries has

requested that the state of California continue their policy

of not reissuing permits that have lapsed and that the

State of Oregon not issue more than the current level of

permits. The observer program’s effectiveness has been

enhanced by meeting the 20% observer coverage level

recommended by the team, by ensuring that the observer

program is targeting all vessels (with the exception of

vessels in which there are safety concerns or inadequate

space to carry an observer), and by having observers

skipper workshops were held throughout California and

Oregon in the summer before each session of 1997, 1998,

1999, and 2000. At the workshops, NOAA Fisheries

presented updated information on the status and content

of the final take reduction plan and background

information on the MMPA and the affected marine

mammal stocks. NOAA Fisheries also provided demonstrations of pingers and encouraged feedback on the

effectiveness of the required fishing strategies in reducing

marine mammal interactions through informal question

and answer sessions. NOAA Fisheries believes that the

skipper education workshops have played a major role in

the success of the plan. Results from the observer

program indicate that compliance with the plan is high,

and that bycatch of marine mammals is below the

calculated PBR level for all strategic stocks.

Differentiation of Serious and Non-Serious Injury in Marine

Mammals

One of the goals of section 118 of the MMPA is to reduce

incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals

that occurs in the course of commercial fishing operations

to below PBR levels. In addition, the long-term goal of the

MMPA is to reduce incidental mortality and serious injury to

insignificant levels approaching a zero mortality and

serious injury rate. Defining the concept of “serious injury”

is integral to implementing the MMPA.

NOAA Fisheries provided a clear definition of “injury” to

marine mammals under the final regulations implementing

the 1994 amendments to the MMPA (50 CFR 229.2), as...

“...a wound or other physical harm. Signs of injury

include, but are not limited to, visible blood flow, loss of or

damage to an appendage or jaw, inability to use one or

more appendages, asymmetry in the shape of the body

or body position, noticeable swelling or hemorrhage,

laceration, puncture, or rupture of eyeball, listless

appearance or inability to defend itself, inability to swim or

dive upon release from fishing gear, or signs of equilibrium

imbalance. Any animal that ingests fishing gear, or any

animal that is released with fishing gear entangling, trailing,

or perforating any part of the body will be considered

injured regardless of the absence of any wound or other

evidence of an injury.”
page 61

1999-2000

dolphin/fishery interactionseastern tropical pacific

mortality and the

percentage of Eastern

spinner and coastal

spotted dolphins in the

total mortality. Additional

amendments to the MMPA

also required certification

under the Pelly Amendment for those nations not

meeting the comparability

requirements of the MMPA

for a period of six months.

The embargoes that

resulted from the MMPA requirements were challenged by other countries as being inconsistent with

the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).

Although never formally adopted by the GATT, a panel

report found the U.S. embargoes to be inconsistent

with GATT provisions.

In 1990, the U.S. Congress passed the Dolphin

Protection Consumer Information Act (DPCIA). The

DPCIA required that tuna labeled as “dolphin-safe”

meet certain criteria. Under the dolphin-safe

definition, all tuna harvested in the ETP on a trip where

there was any intentional encirclement of dolphins

could not be considered dolphin-safe. The DPCIA did

not prohibit tuna that did not meet the dolphin-safe

labeling requirements from being imported, but U.S.

tuna canners instituted a voluntary campaign where

they purchased only dolphin-safe tuna for processing.

The International Dolphin Conservation Act (IDCA) was

passed in 1992, with the intent to establish an

international moratorium on the practice of harvesting

tuna through the use of purse seine nets deployed on

or to encircle dolphins or other marine mammals.

Although the U.S. was unsuccessful in getting any other

nations to commit to such a moratorium, the IDCA

limited U.S. dolphin mortality to 1,000 dolphins for 1992

and 800 for the period between January 1, 1993, and

March 1, 1994. Under the IDCA, estimated U.S. dolphin

mortality dramatically decreased from 19,712 animals

in 1988 to 115 in 1993. The IDCA prohibited U.S. citizens

from intentionally encircling marine mammals and

made it unlawful for any person to sell non-dolphin safe

tuna in the U.S. after June 1, 1994. However, foreign

mortality was managed under the voluntary international dolphin conservation program supported by the

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC).

 n the late 1950s, fishermen began using the as yet

unexplained association between schools of large

yellowfin tuna and schools of certain species of dolphin

to locate and capture tuna. In fact, the Marine Mammal

Protection Act (MMPA) was enacted in 1972, due in large

part to public reaction to the high levels of dolphin

mortality caused by the yellowfin tuna purse seine fishery

in the Eastern tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP). For additional

information about the NOAA Fisheries Tuna/Dolphin

Program, visit the NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected

Resources Tuna/Dolphin Program web site at:

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res.html

At that time, the ETP tuna purse seine fishery was

dominated by U.S. vessels, and annual mortality was

estimated at over 350,000 dolphins. With enactment of

the MMPA, incidental mortality from fishing by the U.S.

domestic fleet declined, but participation in the fishery by

foreign vessels began to increase. Although the U.S.

industry was instrumental in developing gear and

procedures for reducing mortality and for releasing

dolphins alive, foreign vessels were not subject to the

requirements of the MMPA, and international fleet

mortality began to rise as a result of the increase in the

number of foreign vessels. (See Table 1 at end of chapter

for Estimates of Total Incidental Dolphin Mortality for U.S.

and Foreign Purse Seine Vessels in the Eastern Tropical

Pacific Ocean, 1971-2000).

To address the increased mortality by foreign vessels, the

U.S. Congress amended the MMPA several times in the

1980s to tighten the importation requirements for tuna

and tuna products harvested by foreign tuna vessels in

the ETP. These amendments required that nations

exporting yellowfin tuna to the U.S. have in place a

regulatory program for marine mammal protection

comparable to that of the U.S., and achieve an

incidental mortality rate for dolphins in the yellowfin tuna

fishery comparable to that of the U.S. Those amendments also set mortality limits on coastal spotted dolphins

(Stenella attenuata) and Eastern spinner dolphins

(Stenella longirostris) for the U.S. fleet in the ETP tuna purse

seine fishery.

Other amendments to the MMPA in the 1980s clarified

what the Secretary of Commerce must consider when

determining whether a foreign nation is taking measures

comparable to those of the U.S. in protecting dolphins in

the ETP. They included the same prohibitions that were

applicable to U.S. vessels and set limits on total dolphin

I

chapter 7

NOAA X FISHERIES

map of Eastern Tropical Pacific
dolphin/fishery interactions- etp page 62

The IDCPA provides the basis for entry into the U.S. of

yellowfin tuna that would otherwise be under embargo

because it was harvested by vessels of countries that

allow intentional encircling of marine mammals,

provided the harvesting nation provides documentary

evidence of its participation in and compliance with

dolphin and tuna conservation measures of the IDCP

and the IATTC. This multi-lateral, ecosystem approach to

conservation won the support of a number of

environmental organizations, including the Center for

Marine Conservation and the World Wildlife Fund, who

all supported passage of the legislation.

In February 1998, the countries participating in the IDCP

successfully negotiated the Agreement on the

International Dolphin Conservation Program (AIDCP),

which is a legally binding instrument for dolphin

conservation and ecosystem management in the ETP.

The AIDCP became effective on February 15, 1999,

when Mexico, the fourth country, ratified it and

deposited its instrument of ratification with the U.S. To

date, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Honduras,

Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, U.S., and Venezuela

have ratified the AIDCP, and the European Union (i.e.,

Spain), Vanuatu, and Colombia have agreed to

implement the AIDCP provisionally.

The IDCPA became effective March 3, 1999 when the

Secretary of State certified to Congress that a legally

binding instrument establishing the AIDCP had been

adopted and was in force, the Secretary of Commerce

certified that research had begun on the effects of

intentional chase and encirclement on ETP dolphins,

and that funds were available to complete the first year

of the study.

The IDCPA includes revisions to three statutes: the

MMPA, the DPCIA, and the Tuna Conventions Act (16

U.S.C. §§ 951-962). The IDCPA changes the DPCIA

standard for dolphin-safe labels on tuna products

containing tuna harvested in the ETP by purse seine

vessels with carrying capacity greater than 400 short

tons (362.8 mt). Before section 5(c) of the IDCPA

became effective, such tuna products could be

labeled dolphin-safe only if no intentional setting on

dolphins occurred during the entire fishing trip. The

IDCPA also allows U.S. fishing vessels to again participate in the ETP yellowfin tuna fishery by making sets on

dolphins.

Contingent upon the results of research into the effects

of chase and encirclement on depleted dolphin stocks,

the legislation would change the definition of dolphinsafe to mean tuna caught in a set without any

observed dolphin deaths or serious injury, rather than

tuna caught without intentionally encircling dolphins on

any set during an entire trip.

La Jolla Agreement and the Panama Declaration

U.S. participation in the ETP tuna fishery declined significantly in part as a result of the MMPA prohibitions on

encircling dolphins (only a few U.S. vessels remained in the

fishery). As U.S. mortality rate approached zero, nations

that fished for tuna in association with dolphins could no

longer meet the comparability requirement and were

embargoed by the U.S.. In the fall of 1992, the nations

participating in this fishery convened at the annual

meeting of the IATTC and signed the La Jolla Agreement,

placing voluntary limits on the maximum number of

dolphins that could be incidentally killed annually in the

fishery, lowering the maximum each year over seven

years.

However, participation in and success of the voluntary La

Jolla Agreement did not resolve the embargo issues.

Because the multi-nation yellowfin tuna fleet fishes in

international waters, NOAA Fisheries and many others

involved in this issue believe that a binding international

agreement is key to successfully protecting dolphins in the

ETP. In 1995, the U.S. and the governments of Belize,

Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, France, Honduras,

Mexico, Panama, and Spain came together again and

negotiated the Panama Declaration. The Panama

Declaration initiative was the result of the efforts of five

environmental organizations, the Center for Marine

Conservation, Greenpeace International, World Wildlife

Fund, National Wildlife Federation, and the Environmental

Defense Fund, who negotiated the initial drafts of the

agreement. The signing nations agreed that, contingent

on the U.S. amending provisions of the MMPA to resolve

the embargo issue and modify the definition of dolphinsafe tuna, they would enter into a binding international

agreement for the continued protection of dolphins and

the entire ETP ecosystem. The Panama Declaration set the

stage for the establishment of conservative species/stock

specific annual dolphin mortality limits and represented an

important step toward reducing bycatch in commercial

fisheries with sound ecosystem management.

International Dolphin Conservation Program Act (IDCPA)

and the Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program (AIDCP)

Through international cooperation, total dolphin mortality

in the ETP was down to 3,000, a level considered nonthreatening to dolphin stocks by 1997. To fulfill U.S.

commitments to the nations that had worked so hard to

reduce dolphin mortality under the La Jolla Agreement

and the Panama Declaration, the U.S. Congress passed

the IDCPA (Public Law 105-42) in August 1997. The IDCPA

amends the import provisions of the MMPA to allow

yellowfin tuna to be imported from IATTC member nations

that fish in compliance with the IDCP and establishes

criteria for changing the definition of dolphin-safe to allow

tuna caught under the AIDCP to be labeled dolphin-safe.
page 63

chase and encirclement of dolphins in the ETP by the

tuna purse seine fishery was having a significant

adverse impact on any depleted dolphin stock in the

ETP (64 FR 24590). To make its initial finding, NOAA

Fisheries used population abundance survey data

gathered by NOAA Fisheries scientists, a comprehensive review of scientific literature on stress in marine

mammals, current and historical environmental

information from the ETP, and other available data. In a

Report to Congress, NOAA Fisheries concluded that the

currently depleted populations of both Northeastern

offshore spotted dolphins and Eastern spinner dolphins

are apparently not increasing at the rate which would

be expected for the low rate of reported mortalities

from the ETP purse seine fishery since 1991 and the

reproductive potential for these populations.

The Report also indicated that determining the cause of

the apparent failure of dolphin stocks to recover at

expected rates is extremely difficult. The Report to

Congress preliminarily evaluated two possible causes

for the apparent failures of depleted dolphin stocks to

recover: (1) changing environmental conditions and (2)

indirect or unobserved effects of the fishery. A

preliminary review of environmental conditions did not

reveal any regime shift or any other large-scale

oceanographic change during the past few decades

that might affect population growth rates of depleted

dolphin stocks. After a review of the literature on stressrelated research, NOAA Fisheries concluded that it is

plausible that stress resulting from chase and capture in

the ETP yellowfin tuna fishery could be causing a

population level effect on depleted dolphin stocks (i.e.,

increased mortality and/or decreased reproduction),

but NOAA Fisheries was not able to extrapolate effects

on individual animals to population effects based on

available data.

The 1999 Report to Congress neither provided

conclusive evidence that the ETP tuna purse seine

fishery is the cause of the failure of depleted dolphin

stocks to recover as expected nor dismisses the fishery

as a possible cause. With regard to the coastal spotted

dolphins in the ETP, NOAA Fisheries lacks much of the

essential information on mortality and abundance,

especially from the early years of the fishery when the

impact on the stocks would have likely been the

greatest. Additionally, there seems to be a large

disparity in population abundance estimates of coastal

spotted dolphins from the late 1980s to 1998, making it

difficult to evaluate whether the coastal spotted

dolphin population in the ETP has been affected by the

ETP tuna purse seine fishery. Overall, NOAA Fisheries

believes that more scientific research is necessary to

better evaluate the effect of the tuna purse seine

fishery on depleted dolphin stocks in the ETP.

Regulations Implementing the IDCPA

On June 14, 1999, NOAA Fisheries published proposed

regulations (64 FR 31806) to implement provisions of the

IDCPA. These regulations allow the importation of yellowfin

tuna that would otherwise be under embargo from

nations in compliance with the IDCP and allow U.S. vessels

to participate in the yellowfin tuna fishery in the ETP. A U.S.

citizen employed on a purse seine vessel of another

AIDCP signatory nation could participate in intentional

encirclement of dolphin if that vessel takes marine

mammals incidentally during fishing operations outside of

the U.S. EEZ in compliance with the requirements of the

AIDCP. The proposed regulations also changed the

standard of dolphin-safe labeling for tuna products, unless

NOAA Fisheries determines that intentional encirclement is

having a significant adverse effect on depleted dolphin

stocks in the ETP and contain provisions to ensure

adequate tracking and verification of tuna imports from

the ETP. After receiving a considerable number of

comments on the Proposed Rule, on December 8, 1999,

NOAA Fisheries issued a Biological Opinion and an

Environmental Assessment, and the Interim Final Rule was

published in the Federal Register on January 3, 2000 (65 FR

30). NOAA Fisheries anticipates the completion of the Final

Rule in 2002.

Mandated Research and Findings

The IDCPA requires the Secretary of Commerce to

conduct scientific research and make a determination of

whether the intentional deployment on or encirclement of

dolphins with purse seine nets is having a “significant

adverse impact” on any depleted dolphin stock in the ETP.

Dolphin stocks in the ETP now designated as depleted

under the MMPA are the Eastern spinner, Northeastern

offshore spotted, and the coastal spotted dolphins. If

NOAA Fisheries makes a finding of no significant adverse

impact, the “dolphin-safe” labeling standard under

paragraph (h)(1) of the DPCIA (i.e., that no dolphins were

killed or seriously injured during the sets in which the tuna

were caught) replaces the previous standard. The IDCPA

requires the Secretary to make an initial finding in March

1999 and a final finding by the end of 2002.

To make these determinations, the IDCPA requires NOAA

Fisheries to use abundance surveys conducted during

each of the calendar years 1998, 1999, and 2000, and

stress studies including, “(A) a review of relevant stressrelated research and a three-year series of necropsy

samples from dolphins obtained by commercial vessels;

(B) a one-year review of relevant historical demographic

and biological data related to dolphins and dolphin stocks

referred to in paragraph (1); and (C) an experiment

involving the repeated chasing and capturing of dolphins

by means of intentional encirclement.”

On April 29, 1999, NOAA Fisheries made an initial finding

that there was insufficient evidence to determine that the

dolphin/fishery interactions- etp
dolphin/fishery interactions- etp page 64

On December 22, 1999, NOAA Fisheries published a

Proposed Rule designating the official dolphin-safe

mark or logo (64 FR 71722). In addition to publishing the

Proposed Rule in the Federal Register, NOAA Fisheries

sent via fax and mail the Federal Register Notice to

fishing industry representatives, environmental groups,

the Department of State, the Inter-American Tropical

Tuna Commission (IATTC), the U.S. Commissioners to the

IATTC, the Secretary of the Treasury, the U.S. Customs

Service, the Marine Mammal Commission, and the

Federal Trade Commission. NOAA Fisheries also issued

a press release and distributed on e-mail discussion

groups and NOAA Fisheries web sites information

summarizing the major issues contained in the proposed

rule. On May 30, 2000, NOAA Fisheries published the

Final Rule designating the official dolphin-safe mark (65

FR 34408) and responding to comments submitted by

the public on the Proposed Rule.

Affirmative Findings Process Under the IDCPA

The MMPA, 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq, as amended by the

IDCPA, allows the entry into the U.S. of yellowfin tuna

harvested by purse seine vessels in the ETP under

certain conditions. If requested by the harvesting

nation, NOAA Fisheries will determine whether to make

an “affirmative finding” based upon documentary

evidence provided by the government of the

harvesting nation, by the IDCP, the IATTC, or the

Department of State. An affirmative finding applies to

yellowfin tuna and tuna products that were harvested in

the ETP by purse seine vessels of the nation, and applies

to any tuna harvested in the ETP purse seine fishery after

March 3, 1999, the effective date of the IDCPA. A

finding will remain valid for one year (April 1 through

March 31) or for such other period as NOAA Fisheries

may determine. The harvesting nation must submit an

application directly to NOAA Fisheries for the first

affirmative finding. Every five years, the government of

the harvesting nation, must request an affirmative

finding and submit the required documentary evidence

directly to NOAA Fisheries. NOAA Fisheries may require

the submission of additional supporting documentation

or verification of statements made in connection with

requests to allow importations. An affirmative finding will

be terminated, in consultation with the Secretary of

State, if NOAA Fisheries determines that the requirements of 50 CFR 216.24(f)(9) are no longer being met or

that a nation is consistently failing to take enforcement

actions on violations which diminish the effectiveness of

the IDCP.

NOAA Fisheries issued affirmative findings for the

Government of Mexico and the Republic of Ecuador on

April 12, 2000, and May 31, 2000, respectively. NOAA

Fisheries reviewed the applications and documentary

evidence submitted by Mexico and Ecuador and

determined that the requirements under the MMPA to

receive an affirmative finding had been met for the

As a result of NOAA Fisheries’ initial finding, tuna products

containing tuna harvested in the ETP by purse seine vessels

greater than 400 short tons (362.8 mt) could be labeled

“dolphin-safe” only if no dolphins were killed or seriously

injured during the set in which the tuna were caught. This

change in the dolphin-safe labeling standard became

operative on the effective date of the interim final

regulations to implement the IDCPA, February 2, 2000.

While some environmental groups charge that this

change weakens the dolphin-safe standard, NOAA

Fisheries believes that the IDCPA and the AIDCP provide

enhanced, long-term protection for dolphins and

enhanced attention to the conservation of ecosystems

and the sustainable use of living marine resources related

to the tuna fishery in the ETP. However, due to a decision

by a U.S. District Court in Brower v. Daley, the use of this

definition of dolphin-safe has been set aside. (See

Litigation section of this chapter for more information.)

Because of the strict deadline for the initial finding,

additional information is expected to be available for the

final finding that was not available in 1999, including some

of the longer-term studies and additional oceanographic

data.

Designation of the Official “Dolphin-Safe” Mark

The DPCIA, 16 U.S.C. § 1385, as amended by the IDCPA,

requires NOAA Fisheries (acting on behalf of the Secretary

of Commerce) to develop an official mark that may be

used to label tuna products as dolphin-safe. The DPCIA

establishes dolphin-safe standards applicable to tuna

products labeled with either the official mark or an

alternative mark. The DPCIA does not mandate the use of

the official mark nor does it prohibit the use of alternative

marks. However, as set forth under paragraph (d)(3)(B) of

the DPCIA, whenever a tuna product bears the official

mark, it may not bear any other mark or label that refers to

dolphins, porpoises, or marine mammals. NOAA Fisheries

considered the designation of a commonly used dolphinsafe logo as the official mark, but instead decided to

develop a unique logo as the official mark (see below).
dolphin/fishery interactions- etp page 65

Prior to March 3, 1999, section 101(a)(2)(B) of the MMPA

required nations wishing to import into the U.S. yellowfin

tuna or yellowfin tuna products harvested by purse

seine in the ETP to submit documentation indicating that

they were enforcing dolphin protection measures

comparable to those of the U.S. Under section

101(a)(2)(B) of the MMPA effective prior to March 3,

1999, Belize, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Panama,

Vanuatu, and Venezuela were embargoed. The existing

embargoes against yellowfin tuna harvested by purse

seine in the ETP and exported from those five nations

remain in effect. Since March 3, 1999, the standards of

the MMPA, as amended by the IDCPA, changed for the

entry into the U.S. of yellowfin tuna and yellowfin tuna

products harvested by purse seine vessels in the ETP, as

set forth by the interim final rule implementing the IDCPA

(65 FR 30).

Until such time as NOAA Fisheries receives documentary evidence from the Governments of Belize, Bolivia,

Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras,

Nicaragua, Panama, Vanuatu, and Venezuela

demonstrating that they qualify for affirmative findings,

embargoes on yellowfin tuna harvested by purse seine

in the ETP by these nations will continue.

Intermediary Nation Embargoes

On August 19, 2000, NOAA Fisheries made changes in

the “intermediary” nation status for the Governments of

Costa Rica, Italy, and Japan under the MMPA. An

intermediary nation is a nation that exports yellowfin

tuna or yellowfin tuna products to the United States and

that imports yellowfin tuna or yellowfin tuna products

that are subject to a direct ban on importation into the

United States pursuant to section 101(a)(2)(B) of the

MMPA. These changes allow the importation into the

United States from Costa Rica, Italy, and Japan of

yellowfin tuna and yellowfin tuna products harvested in

the ETP after March 3, 1999, the effective date of the

IDCPA.

NOAA Fisheries imposed the intermediary nation

embargoes on these three nations as a result of a court

order dated February 3, 1992 by Judge Thelton

Henderson of the U.S. District Court for the Northern

District of California. NOAA Fisheries was ordered to

impose embargoes on certain intermediary nations

under section 10l(a)(2)(C) of the MMPA. At that time,

section 10l(a)(2)(C) mandated that NOAA Fisheries and

the U.S. Customs Service “. . . require the government of

any intermediary nation, from which yellowfin tuna or

yellowfin tuna products will be exported to the United

States to certify and provide reasonable proof...”

Based on the phrase "from which yellowfin tuna or

yellowfin tuna products will be exported," Judge

Henderson determined that Congress had intended the

purposes of issuing an affirmative finding for the period

April 1 - March 31, 2001. For the years 2001 through 2004,

NOAA Fisheries will work with the IATTC and the Department of State to determine, on an annual basis, whether

these nations or any other that receives an affirmative

finding are meeting the requirements under section

101(a)(2)(B) and (C) of the MMPA to determine whether

the finding should be renewed.

The Government of Spain also submitted documentary

evidence to receive an affirmative finding. However,

NOAA Fisheries personnel reviewed the application and

evidence submitted by the Government of Spain and

obtained from the IATTC and determined, in consultation

with the Department of State, that the requirements under

the MMPA to receive an affirmative finding had not been

met. Therefore, on October 6, 2000, NOAA Fisheries

issued an embargo on yellowfin tuna and products

derived from yellowfin tuna harvested in the ETP by

Spanish-flag purse seine vessels or vessels under Spanish

jurisdiction after March 3, 1999, and all other yellowfin tuna

harvested by purse seine in the ETP exported from Spain to

be imported into the United States. This embargo remains

in effect until further notice. NOAA Fisheries may

reconsider a finding upon request from, and the

submission of additional information by, a harvesting

nation.

Harvesting Nation Embargoes

Pursuant to the IDCPA, if a nation harvesting tuna in the ETP

with purse seine vessels with greater than 400 short tons

(362.8 mt) of carrying capacity and has not received an

affirmative finding as required by 50 CFR 216.24(f)(9),

NOAA Fisheries must embargo yellowfin tuna and yellowfin

tuna products of that nation harvested by purse seine in

the ETP after March 3, 1999. Under this provision, on

October 3, 2000, NOAA Fisheries embargoed yellowfin

tuna and yellowfin tuna products from Belize, Bolivia,

Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua,

Panama, Vanuatu, and Venezuela under the MMPA. This

action prohibits the importation into the U.S. from these

nations of yellowfin tuna and yellowfin tuna products

harvested by purse seine in the ETP.

setting purse seine net;

NOAA Fisheries file photo
dolphin/fishery interactions- etp page 66

Brower v. Daley case. Prior to this ruling, the new

labeling standard would have allowed the dolphin-safe

label to be used on yellowfin tuna caught in the ETP by

purse seine vessels with a carrying capacity greater

than 400 short tons (362.8 mt) if no dolphins were killed

or seriously injured during the set in which the tuna were

caught. This ruling caused the dolphin-safe labeling

standard to revert back to the standard in place

before February 2, 2000, effectively preventing

yellowfin tuna imports that would otherwise have been

considered “dolphin-safe” from being sold as such.

Essentially, if a nation harvests yellowfin tuna in the ETP by

purse seine through the chase and encirclement of

dolphins, this tuna cannot be labeled “dolphin-safe,”

even though the nation is operating in compliance with

the dolphin and tuna conservation measures of the

IDCPA.

The court ruled that NOAA Fisheries did not act in

accordance with the law because it did not adequately consider preliminary results from stress studies

on dolphins in the ETP, as required by the MMPA. On May

18, 2000, the Federal defendants filed an appeal, and

on December 11, 2000, oral arguments were held

before a panel of judges on the 9th Circuit Court of

Appeals. Pending the decision on the appeal, yellowfin

tuna harvested in the ETP by large purse seine vessels

and imported into the U.S. will be considered “dolphinsafe” only if no intentional setting on dolphins occurred

during the trip, and no dolphins were seriously injured or

killed during the set in which the tuna were harvested.

In another pending case, Defenders v. Dalton, several

environmental organizations filed suit against NOAA

Fisheries on February 8, 2000, in the Court of International Trade (CIT). The plaintiffs seek to prevent NOAA

Fisheries from implementing the regulations on the

IDCPA and lifting the tuna embargoes. On April 14,

2000, the CIT declined to enjoin NOAA Fisheries from

making affirmative findings to lift embargoes against

Mexico or other ETP tuna fishing nations. The decision is

temporary pending a ruling on the merits of the case.

The schedule for summary judgement briefings to the

court is set under which briefings will be concluded on

May 25, but there is no hearing schedule as of yet.

scope of the intermediary nation embargoes to cover

“all yellowfin tuna and tuna products” (Earth Island

Institute v. Mosbacher 785 F. Supp. 826, 833 (N. D. Cal.

1992)). On November 2, 1992, after Judge Henderson’s

decision, Congress amended the MMPA and revised

paragraph 101(a)(2)(C) to require that an intermediary

nation “...certify and provide reasonable proof to the

Secretary that it has not imported, within the preceding 6

months, any yellowfin tuna or yellowfin tuna products that

are subject to a direct ban on importation into the United

States under subparagraph (B).” (from Public Law l02-

582)

Under the current intermediary nation embargo

provisions (which the IDCPA recodified as section

101(a)(2)(B)), an intermediary embargo applies only to

that yellowfin tuna harvested by purse seine in the ETP.

The regulations to implement the IDCPA also specify that

the intermediary and primary nation embargoes apply

only to yellowfin tuna harvested by purse seine vessels

greater than 400 short tons (362.8 mt) carrying capacity

in the ETP. Although NOAA Fisheries had evidence to

determine these nations to be intermediary nations under

the original standard as interpreted in Judge Henderson’s

ruling, the evidence was not sufficient to indicate that

Costa Rica, Japan, and Italy were intermediary nations

under the amended definition.

This determination remains in effect until NOAA Fisheries

has sufficient evidence that these nations are importing

yellowfin tuna or tuna products subject to a direct ban

under the MMPA. NOAA Fisheries will review the status of

intermediary nation determinations at the request of such

nations or if it has evidence that a nation is importing

yellowfin tuna or tuna products subject to a direct ban

under section 101(a)(2)(B) of the MMPA. Such requests

must be accompanied by specific and detailed

supporting information or documentation indicating that

a review or reconsideration is warranted.

Litigation

On August 17, 1999, in response to the regulations

implementing the IDCPA, twelve environmentalists and

environmental organizations filed a complaint against the

Department of Commerce and NOAA Fisheries alleging

that NOAA Fisheries violated the MMPA, the DPCIA, and

the IDCPA. Brower v. Daley seeks to prevent the change

in the dolphin-safe label. The plaintiffs alleged that NOAA

Fisheries failed to follow the requirements of these Acts in

its April 29, 1999 initial finding that there was insufficient

evidence to conclude that the encirclement of dolphins

with purse seine nets by fishing vessels in the ETP is having

a significant adverse impact on depleted ETP dolphin

stocks.

On April 11, 2000, the U.S. District Court for the Northern

District of California reversed the NOAA Fisheries’ initial

finding under paragraph (g)(1) of the DPCIA in the
dolphin/fishery interactions- etp page 67

Table 1. Estimates of Total Incidental Dolphin Mortality For U.S. and Foreign

Purse Seine Vessels in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean, 1971-2000

Year U.S. Vessels 1 U.S. Kill 2 Foreign Vessels 1 Foreign Kill 3 Total Kill 4

1971 124 246,213 48 15,715 261,928

1972 127 368,600 58 55,078 423,678

1973 133 206,697 68 58,276 264,973

1974 135 147,437 77 27,245 174,682

1975 142 166,645 82 27,812 194,457

1976 155 108,740 94 19,482 128,222

1977 142 25,452 104 25,901 51,353

1978 101 19,366 121 11,147 30,513

1979 93 17,938 121 3,488 21,426

1980 89 15,305 132 16,665 31,970

1981 94 7,890 118 7,199 35,089

1982 89 23,267 97 5,837 29,104

1983 60 8,513 99 4,980 13,493

1984 34 17,732 91 22,980 40,712

1985 36 19,205 105 39,642 58,847

1986 34 20,692 101 112,482 133,174

1987 34 13,992 126 85,195 99,187

1988 37 19,712 95 59,215 78,927

1989 29 12,643 93 84,336 96,979

1990 29 5,083 94 47,448 52,531

1991 13 1,004 90 26,288 27,292

1992 7 431 90 15,108 15,539

1993 7 115 89 3,486 3,601

1994 7 106 75 3,989 4,095

1995 5 0 99 3,274 3,274

1996 6 0 88 2,547 2,547

1997 6 0 92 3,000 3,000

1998 6 24 92 1,853 1,877

1999 6 0 132 1,436 1,436

2000 6 0 129 1,636 1,636

1 Data for U.S. Vessel and Foreign vessel numbers obtained from Inter-American

Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC)

2 Data for U.S. kill numbers obtained from NOAA Fisheries

3 Data for Foreign kill numbers derived by subtracting U.S. data from IATTC total mortality

estimates of sets made on dolphins during the period

4 Data for Total kill numbers obtained from NOAA Fisheries for the period of 1971-1978

and from IATTC for the period after 1978 using MPS method
page 68

native take

development of cooperative agreements for

individual species of marine mammals. It provided a

draft agreement for consideration and, after several

workshops and drafting sessions, an official Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was signed by NOAA

Fisheries, USFWS, the U.S. Geological Survey, and

IPCoMM on August 27, 1997.

This umbrella agreement was designed to assist in the

development and implementation of section 119

agreements and promote the sustained health of

marine mammal populations utilized for subsistence.

The MOA recommends that section 119 agreements

consider:

• collection and analysis of marine mammal

natural history and population data

• development of co-management

infrastructures

• cooperation in enforcement efforts

• establishment of harvest levels

• development and distribution of public

education materials

• development of management plans

• incorporation of traditional knowledge into

management decision making and training

In 1999, NOAA Fisheries and two Alaska Native

organizations completed other co-management

agreements for stock-specific conservation programs.

In April, NOAA Fisheries and the Alaska Native Harbor

Seal Commission signed an agreement that established a co-management committee that would

facilitate communications between the two parties

and would develop an action plan for site-specific

conservation of Alaska harbor seals.

ection 101(b) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act

(MMPA) provides an exemption from the provisions of

the MMPA for Alaskan Indians, Aleuts, or Eskimos in the

takings of marine mammals for subsistence purposes or

for purposes of creating and selling authentic Native

articles of handicrafts and clothing. These takes may be

limited by quota and other regulations if the species

involved is determined to be depleted under the MMPA

and after notice and hearing procedures under MMPA

section 103. Two subsistence species, the bowhead

whale (Balaena mysticetus) in the Beaufort and Chukchi

Seas, and the Northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus) on the

Pribilof Islands, were subject to such limitations at the

beginning of 1999. Regulating the harvest of both of

these species, however, was initiated under authorities

other than the MMPA, and formal hearings were not

conducted. The bowhead whale harvest is regulated

under the International Whaling Commission (IWC), and

the Fur Seal Act (FSA) regulates the fur seal harvest.

In 2000, NOAA Fisheries issued a Proposed Rule to

regulate the harvest of another population stock of

marine mammals, the Cook Inlet (CI) beluga whales

(Delphinapterus leucas). Descriptions of the CI beluga

harvest and its regulation are contained in the discussion

of CI Harvest later in this chapter and in the overview of

Conservation and Recovery Programs (Chapter 2).

In 1994, section 119 was added to the MMPA. This

section clarified that the Secretary of Commerce (NOAA

Fisheries) has the authority to:

 “enter into cooperative agreements with Alaska

Native organizations to conserve marine mammals and

provide co-management of subsistence use by Alaska

Natives.”

Under section 119, NOAA Fisheries may provide grants to

Alaskan Native organizations to facilitate the:

1) collection and analysis of marine mammal data

2) participation of the organization in marine

mammal research projects

3) monitoring of Alaskan Native harvests of marine

mammals and

4) development of co-management regimes with

Federal agencies

In April 1996, the Indigenous People’s Council for Marine

Mammals (IPCoMM) expressed to NOAA Fisheries and

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) its concern about

the need to develop a framework for governing the

S

chapter 8

NOAA X FISHERIES

preparations for hunt;

photo by University of Alaska

1999 - 2000
native take page 69

and was based on an aboriginal subsistence harvest of

an average of four gray whales a year for the Makah

Indian Tribe combined with an average of 120 gray

whales per year for the Russian natives of the Chukotka

region.

In 1999 and 2000, the U.S. Government issued the

Makah Tribe annual quotas, and the Tribe managed

and oversaw the hunt in accordance with its Management Plan. In May 1999, one gray whale was harvested.

In late 2000, NOAA Fisheries set the Makah Tribe’s quota

at zero, pending completion of a new environmental

analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act in

accordance with a recent appeals court ruling.

Northern Fur Seals

The subsistence harvest of Northern fur seals

(Callorhinus ursinus) on the Pribilof Islands, Alaska, is

governed by regulations published under the authority

of the Fur Seal Act and the MMPA. Pursuant to these

regulations, NOAA Fisheries publishes a summary, every

three years, of the fur seal harvest for the previous

three-year period and a projection of the number of

seals expected to be taken in the subsequent threeyear period to meet the subsistence needs of the Aleut

residents on the Islands.

Based on the results of the 1994-1996 harvests and due

to responses from the tribal governments on St. Paul

and St. George Islands, NOAA Fisheries published a

notice establishing the annual harvest ranges on the

Pribilof Islands.

As a step toward achieving the maximum utilization of

seals harvested for subsistence purposes, the tribal

government of St. Paul voluntarily eliminated the

“butterfly cut” as a standard method of field dressing

harvested seals, and resolved to take only whole

animals from the field. The only exceptions to the

removal of whole carcasses from the field, as permitted

by the tribal government, are:

1) those animals taken to accommodate some of

the elder residents who are physically unable to

butcher whole animals supplied to them by the

tribal government and

2) those carcasses in which the gall bladder was

inadvertently ruptured, thus contaminating

some of the meat with bile. This practice

began with the 1995 harvest, and during 1998

only one butterfly cut seal was taken from the

field under these exceptions. The butterfly cut

was never a standard field dressing method on

St. George Island; therefore, removing only

whole carcasses from the harvesting field is

now a uniform practice in the Pribilofs.

In December, NOAA Fisheries and the Alaska Beluga

Whale Committee (ABWC) completed a co-management agreement to promote the conservation of the four

stocks of beluga whales in Western and Northern Alaska

(Beaufort Sea, Eastern Chukchi Sea, Eastern Bering Sea,

and Bristol Bay). This formalized a strongly cooperative

effort that began in 1988 when ABWC was founded.

Species Harvested for Subsistence

Bowhead Whales

At the 1997 IWC Annual Meeting, the IWC approved a

five-year subsistence take quota of bowhead whales

(Balaena mysticetus), based on a joint proposal by the U.S.

(on behalf of Alaska Eskimos) and the Russian Federation

(on behalf of Chukotka Natives). For the years 1998-2002,

the total bowhead whale quota is set at 280. The number

of bowhead whales struck in any of these years cannot

exceed 67, except that up to 15 unused strikes can be

carried forward and added to the strike quotas of any

subsequent year. NOAA Fisheries works cooperatively

with the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission to monitor the

bowhead whale subsistence harvest. In 1999, the

subsistence harvest of bowhead whales by Alaskan

Eskimos reached 47 strikes, resulting in 42 whales landed.

In 2000, the subsistence harvest of bowhead whales by

Alaskan Eskimos reached 47 strikes, resulting in 35 whales

landed. (See Table 1 below.)

Gray Whales

At its 1997 meeting, the IWC approved, by consensus, a

five-year block quota of 620 gray whales (Eschrichtius

robutus), with an annual cap of 140 animals. The quota

was a joint proposal by the U.S. and the Russian Federation

T s able 1. Bowhead Whale Takes by Alaska Native

Year Harvested Struck/Lost Total

1992 38 12 50

1993 41 11 52

1994 34 12 46

1995 43 14 57

1996 38 5 43

1997 48 18 66

1998 41 13 54

1999 42 5 47

2000 35 12 47
native take page 70

The goals of the agreement are to:

1) develop an Annual Action Plan for conservation of Alaska harbor seal populations and the

co-management of subsistence uses of harbor

seals in Alaska. The Annual Action Plan will

address population monitoring, harvest

management, education, and other recommendations

2) promote the sustained health of harbor seals in

order to protect the culture and way of life of

Alaska Natives who rely on the harvest of

harbor seals for subsistence uses

3) promote scientific research and the collection

of data, including the traditional knowledge of

Alaska Natives, in order to facilitate management decisions concerning harbor seals in

Alaska

4) identify and resolve, as early as possible,

through a consultative process, any management conflicts that may arise associated with

Alaska harbor seals and

5) provide information to subsistence hunters and

the public at large, as a means of increasing

the understanding of the sustainable use,

management and conservation of harbor

seals.

During 2000, analysis of genetic information indicated

that limited movement of harbor seals among haul-out

sites in Alaska has resulted in fine-scale population

structuring. These analyses were presented to the

Alaska Scientific Review Group in November 2000, and

NOAA Fisheries scientists have initiated the process of

publishing their findings in the scientific literature. NOAA

Fisheries and the ANHSC have initiated discussions within

the co-management committee regarding informing

the affected public about these findings and are

beginning to develop a conservation program that

would promote the objectives of the co-management

agreement, which are consistent with the goals of the

MMPA.

NOAA Fisheries completed and signed a cooperative

agreement on June 13, 2000 between NOAA Fisheries,

NOAA Fisheries Alaska Regional Office, and the Tribal

Government of St. Paul Island to co-manage Steller sea

lions and Northern fur seals on St. Paul Island, Pribilof

Islands. The agreement established a co-management

council whose responsibilities include the development

of local management plans for fur seals, sea lions, and

their associated haul-out and rookery areas.

Steller Sea Lions

An interim Alaska Native Steller Sea Lion Commission

was formed in 1994. The commission was to consist of

representatives from Alaska communities that take

Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) for subsistence

In cooperation with the tribal governments of St. Paul and

St. George Islands and the Pribilof Islands Stewardship

Program, NOAA Fisheries continues to make significant

progress toward “full utilization” of the animals taken in the

subsistence harvest through the development and

reestablishment of traditional art and handicraft skills.

NOAA Fisheries continued to monitor the entire harvest on

St. Paul Island and a portion of the harvest on St. George

Island during the 1999 and 2000 seasons. In 1999-2000,

NOAA Fisheries and the local governments estimated

2000-2002 harvest levels, and NOAA Fisheries published

these draft estimates along with a summary of the 1997-

1999 harvests in the Federal Register in August 2000 for

public review and comment. No comments were

received on the draft estimates. (See Table 2 below.)

Harbor Seals

The Alaska Native Harbor Seal Commission (ANHSC),

formed in May 1995, is a tribal consortium comprised of

Native communities within the habitat range of the harbor

seal (Phoca vitulina) off the coast of Alaska. The goal of

the ANHSC is to strengthen and increase the role of Alaska

Natives in resource policy and decisions affecting harbor

seals and their uses.

In early 1998, the NOAA Fisheries Alaska Regional Office

entered into negotiations with the ANHSC on an

agreement, under section 119 of the MMPA, for the

conservation and co-management of harbor seals in

Alaska. The primary purpose of the co-management

agreement on harbor seals was to set forth an operational

structure for the conservation and management of

harbor seals in Alaska between the ANHSC and NOAA

Fisheries. The agreement, which was concluded in April

1999, outlined a consensus-based operational structure,

or co-management committee, comprised of three

representatives from NOAA Fisheries and three representatives from the ANHSC. This committee was responsible

for implementing the co-management agreement and for

developing and implementing an annual action plan for

harbor seal conservation.

Table 2. Northern Fur Seal Harvests for 1997-1999

Year Number Location Subtotal

1997 227

1,153

St. George Island

St. Paul Island

1,380

1998 256

1,297

St. George Island

St. Paul Island

1,553

1999 193

1,000

St. George Island

St. Paul Island

1,193
native take page 71

Under section 10(e) of the ESA and section 101(b) of

the MMPA, prohibitions on the taking of threatened and

endangered species normally do not apply to takings

by Native Alaskans if such taking is primarily for

subsistence purposes and if such taking will not

adversely affect the recovery of the endangered

stock. To date, no action either under the ESA or the

MMPA has been taken to regulate, or otherwise

manage, the subsistence harvest of Steller sea lions by

Alaska Native groups.

In September 1995, NOAA Fisheries contracted with

ADFG to sample tissues from the subsistence harvest of

Steller sea lions and to increase educational efforts in

three Alaska Native communities known to have high

annual subsistence harvest levels (St. Paul Island, St.

George Island, and Unalaska). Sampling of killed

animals involved collection of tissues to determine age,

sex, genetic composition, physical condition, reproductive history, and exposure to anthropogenic contaminants (see Chapter 3-- Health and Stranding Response).

Educational efforts were intended to increase Native

awareness of the plight of the Steller sea lion and to

encourage local management of the subsistence

harvest. The contractor, in association with the NOAA

Fisheries Alaska Regional Office, held community

workshops to discuss Steller sea lion recovery efforts

and to inform hunters of the tissue collection project.

This project was continued during 1997-1998, and

project reports are available (see Table 3 for a summary

of the harvest). The subsistence project did not

continue field work in 1999-2000.

needs and was formed to improve communication

among these indigenous communities, to advocate for

conservation of Steller sea lions, to advocate for

protection of customary and traditional rights of

indigenous peoples with regard to access and use of sea

lions, and to serve as the focal point for development of

cooperative agreements with NOAA Fisheries. No

substantial progress was made during 1995-1996 in

establishing a functioning commission, or in the adoption

of hunting guidelines originally proposed by Native hunters.

In May 1997, the Aleutian/Pribilof Islands Association and

the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG), through

partial funding from NOAA Fisheries, sponsored a meeting

in Dutch Harbor to address the need for a permanent and

effective Alaska statewide commission. Those in

attendance agreed on the need for such a commission

and discussed how it might relate to a regional marine

mammal commission, considering that the highest level of

subsistence take of Steller sea lions occurs in the Aleutian

and Pribilof Islands, and that the species was recently listed

as endangered in its Western range. After some

discussion, the representatives agreed that regional

concerns could be most effectively addressed by a

statewide commission. It was also determined, however,

that the efforts of the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands

communities would be primarily focused on the establishment of a regional commission leaving the task of the

statewide commission to others already involved with the

initiative.

Accordingly, representatives from Alaska Native

communities in the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands region

formed a regional marine mammal commission. The

purpose of this commission is to address management

and other concerns regarding those marine mammal

species, including Steller sea lions, taken by these

communities for subsistence use. Interim co-chairs were

appointed, and it was agreed that bylaws would be

drafted and circulated to the respective tribal governments for review and approval. Upon the development

of a final draft, a subsequent meeting will be convened to

ratify the bylaws and elect officers of the commission.

NOAA Fisheries and the Tribal Government of St. Paul

worked in 1998 to develop a cooperative agreement for

the co-management of Steller sea lions on St. Paul Island.

The draft underwent further development in 1999. Also in

1998, the Alaska Sea Otter Commission actively began

taking up Steller sea lion advocacy and began discussions

with NOAA Fisheries regarding subsistence harvest and

conservation issues of sea lions for other parts of Alaska.

Subsequently, the Sea Otter Commission has added Steller

sea lions to its responsibilities and has changed its name to

the Alaska Sea Otter and Steller Sea Lion Commission.

NOAA Fisheries is currently working with the Commission,

the Aleut Marine Mammal Commission, and the tribal

government of St. Paul to develop a range-wide

conservation program for Steller sea lions.

Table 3. Steller sea lion take by Alaska Natives

Year Harvested Struck/Lost Total

1992 370 179 549

1993 348 139 487

1994 336 80 416

1995 307 32 339

1996 149 30 179

1997 164 18 146

1998 128 43 171

1999 ----- ----- -----

2000 ----- ----- -----
native take page 72

for a harvest of a single whale in 2000 by the Native

Village of Tyonek; however, no hunt was conducted in

2000.

Following the designation of CI beluga whales as

depleted in June 2000, NOAA Fisheries proposed a rule

to regulate subsistence harvest of these beluga whales

to provide long-term conservation for the stock. As

required by the MMPA, NOAA Fisheries scheduled a

formal hearing before Administrative Law Judge Parlen

McKenna in early December. Parties at the hearing

included the Cook Inlet Treaty Tribes, the Native Village

of Tyonek, Joel and Debra Blatchford, the Alaska Oil

and Gas Association, Trustees for Alaska, the Marine

Mammal Commission, and NOAA Fisheries. By the end

of the hearing, the parties had agreed in principle to

limit harvest from 2001-2004 to a total of six strikes. The

proposed agreement would allow one strike per year

to the Native Village of Tyonek and an additional two

strikes over the four-year period (no more than one in

any given calendar year) to other Native hunters in the

CI area.

In December 2000, it was apparent that long-term

harvest regulations would not be completed by the

spring of 2001 under the formal procedure required by

the MMPA. When Congress passed appropriations for

FY 2001, it extended the requirement for a comanagement agreement to authorize the harvest of CI

beluga whales. The provision, which was passed by

Congress in late December 2000, removed the

expiration date from the limitation that was included in

the 1999 legislation. Thus, the requirement for a comanagement agreement for the subsistence taking of

CI beluga whales became permanent. At the end of

2000, NOAA Fisheries and the other parties to the

formal hearing continued to work toward long-term

harvest regulations that would allow a subsistence

harvest to continue while the CI beluga stock

recovered from depletion.

Beluga Whales

Statewide Subsistence Harvest

The Alaska Beluga Whale Commission (ABWC) was

formed in 1988 to promote healthy populations of beluga

whales (Delphinapterus leucas) in Alaskan waters, to

obtain better harvest information and to encourage

better communication between beluga hunters, biologists,

and agencies. Since its formation, the ABWC has met

annually to compile reliable harvest information on beluga

whale takes by Alaska Natives (see Table 4). Hunters from

approximately 50 villages belong to the ABWC and report

annual harvest numbers. In 1999, ABWC and NOAA

Fisheries formalized a long history of cooperation through

the completion of a co-management agreement.

Cook Inlet Harvest

The CI belugas are a small, geographically isolated

remnant population of whales. The Cook Inlet population

of beluga whales is separated from other beluga

populations by the Alaska Peninsula.

Despite being geographically isolated for possibly

thousands of years, the CI belugas appear to have

maintained a relatively high level of genetic diversity,

leading researchers to believe that this population remains

viable. Unfortunately, the geographic isolation of these

whales, in combination with their tendency toward site

fidelity, makes them vulnerable to subsistence harvests by

Alaska Natives and from anthropogenic and environmental hazards. The population declined by 15% per year

between 1994 and 1998. The 1998 aerial survey estimate

(347) was nearly 50% lower than the 1994 estimate (653).

NOAA Fisheries, in conjunction with the ABWC and the

Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council, initiated a status

review of CI beluga whales in November 1998 to

determine whether designation under the MMPA or a

change in listing classification under the Endangered

Species Act (ESA) is warranted. Additional information

related to the status of CI beluga whales is included in the

discussion of belugas in the overview of Conservation and

Recovery Programs.

When it passed the emergency supplemental appropriations bill in April 1999, Congress included a provision to

address the harvest of CI beluga whales. The provision

prohibited the harvest of CI beluga whales except as

authorized under a co-management agreement pursuant

to section 119 of the MMPA, and it had an expiration date

of October 1, 2000. This provision allowed temporary

protection for this stock of beluga whales during the

period when NOAA Fisheries followed the formal

procedures under the MMPA to establish long-term

harvest limits. No such agreement was negotiated in

1999; therefore, Alaska Natives did not hunt CI belugas in

1999. NOAA Fisheries and the Cook Inlet Marine Mammal

Council negotiated and concluded such an agreement

Table 4. Beluga Whale Harvest Data from Western Alaska

Landed (struck/lost)

1998 1999

Beaufort Sea Stock 59 (6) 35 (10+)

Eastern Chukchi Sea Stock 91 (5) 52 (0)

Eastern Bering Sea Stock 143 (27) 134 (25)

Bristol Bay Stock 6 (1) 17 (4)

Total 299 (39) 238 (39+)
page 73

1999-2000

international activities

therefore is not bound by that decision. Thus, it

continues to take minke whales (Balaenoptera

acutorostrata) from the Northeast Atlantic Ocean.

The IWC has passed several resolutions condemning

Norwegian whaling outside the IWC.

Article VIII of the ICRW grants countries the right to

issue permits to kill whales for scientific purposes.

Japan takes approximately 540 minke whales annually

for research. Japan’s research program is opposed

by the IWC, which has passed several resolutions

urging Japan to discontinue its program.

In April 2000, Japan announced its intention to expand

its scientific research whaling program in the North

Pacific to include the lethal take of two additional

species- sperm whale (Physeter catodon) and Bryde’s

whale (Balaenoptera edeni). The United States and

fifteen other countries oppose the expansion of the

program and have proposed that Japan discontinue

this program and explore non-lethal means of

gathering the data.

On September 13, 2000, Secretary of Commerce

Mineta certified under the Pelly Amendment to the

Fishermen’s Protection Act of 1967 (Pelly Amendment)

that Japan’s expansion of its scientific whaling

program was undermining the effectiveness of the

IWC. As a result of this certification, the Pelly Amendment required that the President consider imposing

import prohibitions and report to Congress within 60

days of this certification. In his December 29, 2000

Report to Congress, the President noted that he did

not believe that import prohibitions would further U.S.

objectives at this time. The President directed

agencies to keep this issue under active review and to

identify potential candidates for import restrictions.

nder Section 108(a)(1) of the Marine Mammal

Protection Act (MMPA), the Secretary of Commerce

is mandated to:

“.... initiate negotiations as soon as possible for

the development of bilateral or multinational agreements

with other nations for the protection and conservation of

all marine mammals covered under this Act.”

As a result, the Departments of Commerce, Interior and

State, in consultation with the Marine Mammal Commission, must pursue international agreements and

negotiate new agreements to achieve the purposes of

the MMPA. This chapter describes NOAA Fisheries

involvement in international programs and activities

pertaining to marine mammals during 1999 and 2000.

International Whaling Commission (IWC)

The International Convention for the Regulation of

Whaling (ICRW) was established in 1946 with the

objective of achieving proper conservation of world

whale stocks, thus making possible the orderly development of the whaling industry. The Convention created

the International Whaling Commission (IWC) to provide

for a continuing review of the condition of whale stocks

and of the agreed conservation measures. In the U.S.,

the treaty is implemented through the Whaling Convention Act of 1949.

Past actions by the IWC include the establishment of a

whale sanctuary in the Indian Ocean and in the Southern

Ocean, prohibition on the use of non-exploding harpoons

to kill whales for commercial purposes, a moratorium on

all commercial whaling that took effect in 1986, and the

adoption of a separate and distinct management

scheme for aboriginal subsistence whaling.

In 1997, in an attempt to resolve some of the longstanding challenges to the IWC’s ability to control

commercial whaling, the Irish Government introduced a

proposal to establish a whale sanctuary in the high seas,

in exchange for allowing the resumption of limited

coastal commercial whaling. The proposal remains

under discussion.

Commercial and Scientific Whaling

The IWC continues to maintain the moratorium on

commercial whaling. However, Norway lodged an

objection to the 1982 moratorium decision, and

U

chapter 9

NOAA X FISHERIES

whaling ship: NOAA Fisheries file photo
page 74 international activities

for further coordination with the World Health

Organization. Other actions in 1999 included the

passage of a resolution requiring the Scientific

Committee to provide advice on genetic identification

methods which would allow tracking under the Revised

Management Scheme, a resolution expressing

concern over the increased catches of Dall’s porpoise

in Japanese fisheries, and a resolution encouraging the

submission of relevant information to the whale killing

methods working group and the development of more

accurate time to death indicators. Furthermore, as it

has done for the past 11 years, the IWC denied, based

on its commercial elements, Japan’s request for an

interim quota of minke whales for its small-type coastal

whalers. Scientific whaling is allowed under the

Convention, and Japan is engaged in lethal research

on minke whales in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary and

in the Western North Pacific. Nonetheless, the IWC has

concluded that these programs are contrary to its

conservation goals, and in 1999, passed a resolution

condemning these lethal scientific whaling programs.

2000 Annual Meeting

The 52nd annual IWC meeting was held in Adelaide,

Australia, from July 3-6, 2000. The U.S. supported the

passage of several resolutions, including two

resolutions that were passed urging Japan to refrain

from issuing permits to take whales for scientific

purposes in both the Northern Pacific and the Southern

Ocean. The former specifically criticized Japan’s

proposal to expand its scientific whaling program in the

North Pacific to include the take of sperm and Bryde’s

whales in addition to its lethal research on minke

whales in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary and in the

North Pacific. The IWC has concluded that these

programs are contrary to its conservation goals, and

has repeatedly passed resolutions condemning these

lethal scientific whaling programs.

The IWC considered draft language for a Supervision

and Control Scheme and discussed its relation to the

development of draft text for the overall Revised

Management Scheme. The United States supported a

consensus resolution calling for an intersessional

meeting to make additional progress on the Revised

Management Scheme and supported a highly

publicized proposal by Australia and New Zealand to

establish a South Pacific Whale Sanctuary. The

Sanctuary proposal did not pass, but is expected to be

raised again in the future.

As it has done for the past twelve years, the IWC

denied, based on its commercial elements, Japan’s

request for an interim quota of minke whales for its

small-type coastal whalers. A separate resolution was

passed that called upon IWC members to work

expeditiously to provide such a quota in the future.

Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling

Aboriginal subsistence whaling, in accordance with

limitations set by the IWC, is conducted by aboriginal

Natives in Greenland, Russia, St. Vincent and the

Grenadines, and the United States. In addition, although

not currently an IWC member, Canada has continued to

authorize the taking of bowhead whales (Balaena

mysticetus) by its Natives.

At the 1997 Annual Meeting, the IWC approved a

combined quota of bowhead whales to meet the needs

of the Eskimos in Alaska and Russia which allows an

average of 56 bowhead whales to be landed each

year. The Alaska Eskimos have been conducting

aboriginal subsistence hunts with approval of the IWC

since the IWC began regulating such hunts in the 1970s.

At the 1997 Annual Meeting, the IWC also adopted a

quota that allows a five-year aboriginal subsistence hunt

of an average of four gray whales a year by the Makah

Indian Tribe, combined with an average annual harvest

of 120 gray whales by Russian natives of the Chukotka

region. NOAA Fisheries recently set the quota for the

Makah Tribe at zero, pending completion of analysis

under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in

accordance with an appeals court ruling.

Further information on subsistence hunting by U.S. natives

can be found in Chapter 8- Native Take.

1999 Annual Meeting

The 51st Annual IWC Meeting was held in St. George’s,

Grenada, from May 24-28, 1999. The U.S. led the

passage of several resolutions, including one reaffirming

the cooperation between the IWC and the Convention

on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild

Fauna and Flora (CITES) and requiring the IWC Secretariat to advise the CITES Secretariat that the IWC has

not yet completed a revised management regime that

ensures that future commercial whaling catch limits are

not exceeded and that whale stocks can be adequately protected. In a surprise move, Japan

submitted draft text for a Supervision and Control

Scheme, one of the uncompleted elements of the IWC’s

developing Revised Mangement Scheme. The IWC

called upon members to submit comments on this text

and deferred its consideration until the 2000 annual

meeting.

The U.S. Commissioner, Dr. D. James Baker, gave a

presentation regarding environmental threats to

cetaceans, which led to the IWC’s adoption of a

resolution providing for increased financial support for

the Southern Ocean Whale and Ecosystem Research

(SOWER) 2000 and POLLUTION 2000+ research

programs. In addition, the IWC adopted by consensus a

resolution calling for additional research on the human

health effects from the consumption of cetaceans and
international activities page 75

Meeting of the CITES Animals Committee ,

December 11-15, 2000, in Shepherdstown, West

Virginia. At the meeting, a “contact group” was

constituted to consider this issue by correspondence

until the next meeting of the Animals Committee.

Several species of whales were proposed for

downlisting from Appendix I to Appendix II of CITES.

This action would re-open international commercial

trade in whales. The following are outcomes in voting

for populations/stocks of these species.

Eastern North Pacific gray whales. Japan proposed to

transfer this population from Appendix I to Appendix II.

The debate centered on arguments of principle:

whether CITES should postpone downlisting of whale

populations until the IWC completes a management

scheme to monitor commercial harvest of whales. The

U.S. strongly opposed all four proposals to downlist

whale populations, based on the IWC’s continuing

moratorium on commercial whaling. In a secret ballot,

the proposal was defeated by a vote of 40 for, 63

against, 6 abstaining.

Southern Hemisphere minke whales. Japan proposed

to transfer these whales from Appendix I to II, but

added an amendment, in the form of an annotation,

that trade would be allowed only between Parties with

a method of DNA identification of specimens in trade.

Suriname offered a confusing amendment that would

have set a zero quota until COP12, after which “it is

expected” that the IWC would have made a decision

about its management scheme. The first secret ballot

was on the proposal as amended by Japan, which

was defeated by a vote of 46 for, 69 against, and 4

abstaining. In probable violation of the rules of

procedure, the Suriname amendment to a defeated

proposal was itself defeated by a secret vote of 47 for,

66 against, 5 abstaining.

Okhotsk Sea-West Pacific stock of minke whales.

Another Japanese proposal for downlisting from

Appendix I to II was defeated, without debate, by a

secret vote of 49 for, 67 against, 3 abstaining.

Northeast Atlantic and North Atlantic Central stocks of

minke whales. Norway proposed to transfer these

stocks from Appendix I to II. This proposal was

considered twice by the COP– first in Committee 1

and again in plenary. In Committee 1, the proposal

was defeated in a secret vote of 52 for, 57 against,

and 9 abstentions. Norway proposed its consideration

plenary, with an amendment to limit trade to products

from animals taken within areas of national jurisdiction

(where the Norwegian hunt is now conducted), and to

limit trade to countries with DNA-based identification

systems for trade control. Norway achieved its

purpose in achieving a simple majority, by a secret

ballot of 53 for, 52 against, 8 abstaining.

Other actions in 2000 included the passage of a

resolution calling upon Canada (a non-IWC nation) to

refrain from issuing subsistence quotas for highly

endangered bowhead whales, a resolution reiterating

the need for the IWC to examine the effects of

environmental change on cetaceans, a resolution in

support of the protocols on Persistent Organic Pollutants

and heavy metals, and resolutions on protecting

freshwater cetaceans and North Atlantic right whales.

The 53rd IWC meeting will be held in London in July 2001.

Convention on International Trade in Endangered

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

The 11th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties

(COP11) to the Convention on International Trade in

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) was

convened April 10-20, 2000 in Nairobi, Kenya. Following

is a brief description of agenda items and outcomes. All

votes required a 2/3 majority of those voting for

passage. Secret ballots were individually requested for

each vote described below.

Resolutions

Consolidation of cetacean resolutions. The Secretariat,

at the Parties request, prepared a text consolidating

previous resolutions on cetacean conservation and

trade and on CITES’ relationship with the IWC. Japan

and Australia opposed the consolidation. The resolution

passed 41 for, 5 against, 31 abstentions.

Relationship with IWC and CITES. Japan and Norway

submitted a resolution on CITES’ relationship with the

IWC, to set the stage for their downlisting proposals. The

U.S. countered with its own resolution confirming

cooperation between the two bodies. After inconclusive debate in Committee II, the chairman postponed

voting on the resolutions. The issue was not taken up

again until after the whale downlisting proposals had

been defeated in Committee I. The Japanese/

Norwegian resolution was defeated by a vote of 31 for,

49 against, with 10 abstentions. The U.S. then withdrew its

resolution, stating that the previous votes in both

committees adequately reinforced the cooperative

relationship.

Changes to the CITES appendices

Black Sea bottlenose dolphin. The U.S. and Georgia

submitted a proposal to move this population from

Appendix II to Appendix I, thus prohibiting commercial

trade. The proposal was encumbered by the failure of

Georgia to attend the COP. The U.S. withdrew the

proposal in favor of a referral to the Animals Committee

to examine several issues (including the effect of

international trade on the population and whether the

sub-species is distinct) before the next COP. Trade in

Black Sea bottlenose dolphin was considered at the 16th
international activities page 76

The next CITES Conference of Parties will be held in

Santiago, Chile in November 2002.

Additional International Efforts

During 1999-2000, NOAA Fisheries also pursued

additional opportunities for international efforts and

agreements. Chapter 7- Dolphin/Fishery Interactions in

the Eastern Tropical Pacific- outlines initiatives related to

wild dolphin interactions with the Eastern Tropical Pacific

Tuna Purse Seine Fishery. Chapter 10- Education and

Outreach- addresses international steps undertaken

related to NOAA Fisheries’ efforts to minimize harassment to wild marine mammals from human recreational

activities. Chapter 3- Health and Stranding Responseoutlines the Marine Mammal Health and Stranding

Response Program’s initiatives. Finally, NOAA Fisheries

staff attended numerous scientific and professional

meetings and promoted information sharing with

colleagues abroad to improve upon the continued

protection of wild marine mammals.
page 77

1999-2000

education and outreach

Web-based Outreach

During 2000, NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected

Resources (OPR) redesigned its world wide website to

be more user friendly and provide additional on-line

resources to its constituents. The effort has been

successful, as the OPR site is the third most visited

NOAA site and the most visited NOAA Fisheries

website. Constituents can now access information on

NOAA Fisheries reports, legislative histories, species

specific descriptions, and program information relating

to marine mammals, endangered species and marine

biodiversity at:

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/prot_res.html

Workshops -- Obtaining A Marine Mammal and/or

Endangered Species Permit

Sections of the NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected

Resources worked cooperatively to conduct

workshops for scientists working with species

protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act

(MMPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA), or

both in combination.

In April 2000, a workshop was held at the NOAA

Fisheries' Northeast Fisheries Science Center in Woods

Hole, Massachusetts and focused on regulations

governing taking of marine mammals and sea turtles in

the Northeast Atlantic Ocean. In November 2000, a

OAA Fisheries and its programs affect a variety of

people, including fishers, wildlife managers,

conservationists, policy-makers, and the general public.

Education and outreach is therefore a critical tool in

conveying NOAA Fisheries’ messages and allows public

access to information about federal policies and

initiatives. Whether it be holding public meetings,

participating in school and community outreach

programs, or improving the NOAA Fisheries worldwide

website, NOAA Fisheries works hard to ensure its

constituents are not only able to access information

important to their interests, but also learn about the vast

wonders of the resources that NOAA Fisheries works to

protect. This chapter outlines select NOAA Fisheries

education and outreach efforts throughout its headquarters and regional offices

Headquarters, Office of Protected Resources

MMPA Bulletin

The MMPA Bulletin is a quarterly publication designed to

increase public awareness of the Marine Mammal

Protection Act (MMPA) legislative, regulatory, and

implementation processes. The first edition, published in

September 1994, included a description of the MMPA

Amendments of 1994, and subsequent editions have

focused on NOAA Fisheries’ efforts to implement the

amendments and other aspects of the MMPA. The MMPA

Bulletin’s readership consists mostly of commercial fishers

and representatives of the environmental and marine

mammal science communities, as well as state and

federal agencies dealing with protected species issues,

Alaska Native organizations, public display facilities, and

Congress.

The MMPA Bulletin’s readership has increased from

approximately 1,800 in 1996 to almost 4,000 subscribed

readers in 2000. Although the vast majority of the

readership is in the U.S., international interest in the Bulletin

has greatly increased in recent years illustrating the

worldwide interest in marine mammal conservation

issues. NOAA Fisheries has also worked to publicize the

availability of the MMPA Bulletin by posting announcements of each issue on key Internet listservers, such as

“MARMAM”, “WILDLIFE HEALTH”, and “FISHFOLK”. The

MMPA Bulletin can also be found on the Office of

Protected Resources website at:

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/prot_res.html

N

chapter 10

NOAA X FISHERIES

NOAA Fisheries staff conducting public outreach;

M. Oswell, NOAA Fisheries Office for Law Enforcement
education and outreach page 78

Partnership with the “Watchable Wildlife" Program

During 1999 and 2000, the NOAA Fisheries OPR

continued to build upon its relationship with the

Watchable Wildlife (WW) program. This is a unique

partnership between federal, state and environmental

groups that have been promoting safe and responsible wildlife viewing guidelines for over a decade.

Organizations that have signed the WW Memorandum

of Understanding include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the National Park

Service, Audubon Society, Defenders of Wildlife,

National Wildlife Federation, and other wildlife interest

groups. The WW produces public education and

outreach materials to teach people how to responsibly

and respectfully view wildlife, including an informative

state guidebook series that highlights places to view

wildlife while educating the public as to why it is harmful

to closely approach, disturb, and feed wild animals.

The WW has also developed guidelines on how to view

wildlife to help protect the safety and well-being of

both wild animals and people, such as: viewing wildlife

from a safe distance and using binoculars for a “close

look”; staying clear of nests, dens and rookeries; and

never touching or feeding wild animals. Although the

WW has historically focused on terrestrial species of

wildlife, the WW’s viewing etiquette and stewardship

principles also directly apply to marine species.

During 1999 and 2000, NOAA Fisheries participation

has broadened the WW to focus efforts on marine

species, and provided an opportunity to enhance

NOAA’s education and outreach efforts on responsible wildlife viewing in the marine environment,

including addressing persistent problems such as:

(1) people closely approaching, feeding and disturbing

marine mammals, sea turtles, sea birds and fish; and

(2) engaging in harmful boating and diving/ snorkeling

practices that damage coral reef, sea grass, and

other marine resources.

NOAA Fisheries' Efforts to Promote Responsible Marine

Wildlife Viewing

Viewing marine mammals in their natural habitat can

be an educational and enriching experience if

conducted safely and responsibly. However, when

conducted irresponsibly, these activities can disturb

the animals (i.e., cause “harassment”) and place their

health and welfare at risk. There are also significant

public safety considerations as people have been

seriously injured while trying to interact with wild marine

mammals. The distinction between “viewing” vs.

“interacting” with wild marine mammals needs to be

made clear to the public, an effort that NOAA Fisheries

has been pursuing for over a decade.

workshop was held in Austin, Texas at the Third Conference on Partnership Opportunities for Federally

Associated Collections, hosted by the Texas Association

of Museums. As part of the course entitled: “Permit Me:

Federal permits, international conventions, and the

management of Federally-associated collections,” the

workshop focused on laws and regulations affecting the

collection, transportation, possession and use of marine

mammal and endangered species specimens in

museum collections.

Additionally, in November 2000, OPR staff participated in

a meeting sponsored by the Alaska Sealife Center

(ASLC), Seward, Alaska. The meeting attendants

included researchers from Federal and State government agencies, universities and aquaria. ASLC receives

Federal funds to conduct research that will assist with the

management of Steller sea lions. The workshop focused

on three areas: (1) most appropriate capture and

transport techniques; (2) veterinary, husbandry and

quarantine issues for temporary maintenance; and

(3) research design and justifications. The workshop

covered all aspects of review, related laws and

regulations, and coordination among researchers

required to minimize cumulative effects of multiple

activities on the same species.

Outreach for Commercial Fishing and Shipping

Industries

From OPR headquarters, a number of educational

efforts have focused on working with the fishing and

shipping industries to reduce marine mammal mortality

as well as promote the mandatory reporting requirements of these mortality events. In addition to the

regional initiatives outlined in this chapter, NOAA Fisheries

also: (1) conducted a “Marine Aquaculture, Marine

Mammals, and Marine Turtles Interactions Workshop” in

January 1999; (2) distributed 1,000 laminated Handling/

Release Guidelines for Pelagic Longline Gear to

Southeast Region fishermen; (3) regularly distributed

brochures on Northern right whales and ship strikes; (4)

developed a one-page laminated brochure regarding

the Northern right whale Mandatory Ship Reporting

System (MSR) and distributed information to shipping

companies regarding complying with the MSR; and (5)

developed a website devoted to the MSR on the NOAA

Fisheries website.

permits workshop;

NOAA Fisheries

file photo
education and outreach page 79

2, 2001.); and (d) approaching Northern right

whales closer than 500 yards in U.S. waters of

the North Atlantic.

2) developing guidelines to educate the general

public on how to responsibly view marine

mammals in the wild without causing

harassment

3) continuing the “Protect Dolphins” campaign

(launched in 1997) to educate the public

about the specific concerns with closely

approaching, feeding or swimming with wild

dolphins

4) joining the Watchable Wildlife Program (see

description on page 78)

5) conducting enforcement actions that can

give strong support to the existing regulations

and educational efforts. However, additional

resources for enforcement and litigation are

needed to fully address this issue.

Documented Impact of Human Interactions on Marine

Mammals in the Wild

MMC Pilot study: In 1998, NOAA Fisheries and the

Marine Mammal Commission (MMC) contracted with

scientists from the Woods Hole Oceanographic

Institute and the Chicago Zoological Society to

evaluate the effects of habitual interactions between

humans and wild dolphins near Panama City, Florida.

(Samuels and Bejder, 1998) The research documented

significant differences in the behavior and ranging

patterns of wild dolphins habituated to humans versus

wild dolphins not habituated to humans. The researchers concluded that human interaction is likely to be

detrimental to wild dolphins, and that virtually all

interactions between humans and wild dolphins in the

Panama City area are based on illegal food provisioning.

MMC Literature Review: In follow-up to the pilot study,

the MMC sponsored a literature review entitled, A

Review of the Literature pertaining to Swimming with

Wild Dolphins (Samuels et al. 2000), to evaluate

scientific information regarding human interactions

with marine mammals in the wild. The report concluded that: lone, sociable cetaceans are particularly

vulnerable to human activities and harassment; foodprovisioned cetaceans should be protected by

enforcement of the regulations which already prohibit

feeding or attempting to feed wild marine mammals;

and despite the lack of scientific data on the effects of

human interactions on both habituated and

unhabituated animals, there is a clear risk of harassment from such activities. Unhabituated dolphins in

particular are disturbed by humans attempting to

interact with them (e.g., Hawaiian spinner dolphins).

From a biological and management standpoint, the

harassment of wild marine mammals by members of

the public continues to be a concern. Specifically,

efforts by the public to closely approach, pet, touch,

feed, swim with or otherwise interact with wild

cetaceans, seals and sea lions can cause “harassment” of the animals, which is illegal under the MMPA.

The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals

which is defined as “to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or

attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine

mammal.” Section 3(18)(A) of the MMPA defines the

term “harassment” as “any act of pursuit, torment, or

annoyance which –

1) Level A Harassment- has the potential to injure

a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in

the wild, or

2) Level B Harassment- has the potential to

disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal

stock in the wild by causing disruption of

behavioral patterns, including, but not limited

to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,

feeding, or sheltering.”

The MMPA does not provide exemptions to the “take”

prohibition for viewing or interacting with wild marine

mammals. Therefore, interacting with wild marine

mammals should not be attempted, and viewing

marine mammals must be conducted in a manner that

does not "harass" or "take" the animals.

NOAA Fisheries has attempted to address this issue

through education and regulatory actions, such as:

1) issuance of regulations prohibiting: (a) feeding

or attempting to feed wild cetaceans, seals

and sea lions; (b) negligent or intentional

operation of an aircraft or vessel, or the doing

of any other negligent or intentional act which

results in disturbing or molesting a marine

mammal; (c) approaching humpback whales

closer then 100 yards in Hawaii and Alaska

(The Alaska regulations goes into effect on July

Examples of Activities of Concern

dangerous interactions;

NOAA Fisheries file photo

illegal feeding of wild

dolphins; L. Bejder

too close to resting seals;

NOAA Fisheries file photo
education and outreach page 80

mammals in the wild. These efforts were conducted by

both NOAA Fisheries staff biologists and enforcement

personnel who worked to achieve voluntary

compliance by the public with the NOAA Fisheries

guidelines and regulations for viewing marine

mammals in their natural habitats.

NOAA Fisheries staff continued to work with representatives from WW to incorporate marine mammals and

other protected marine species into the program.

NOAA Fisheries initiated the formation of a “Marine

Species Task Force” comprised of a board member

from WW, personnel from NOAA Fisheries and NOAA’s

National Marine Sanctuaries Program, and marine

species experts from the WW program.

Throughout 1999 and 2000, NOAA Fisheries promoted

the “Protect Dolphins” campaign to educate the

public that feeding and harassing wild dolphins is

harmful and illegal under the MMPA (see 1998 MMPA

Annual Report). NOAA Fisheries continued to work with

scientific researchers, public display facilities, and

environmental groups to make the distinction between

passive observation and interaction and promote safe

and responsible wildlife viewing practices.

For 1999, highlights of education and outreach efforts

related to responsible wildlife viewing included:

1) issuance of three press releases during the

summer to remind the public about the

dangers of feeding and harassing wild

dolphins in the Southeast – May 28th to kick off

the start of summer; July 19th to announce a

feeding case enforcement victory; and

September 1st to address the Labor Day

weekend activities.

2) participation in the annual WW conference

where NOAA Fisheries staff contributed to a

symposium on marine mammal viewing issues

and focused on concerns about the public

closely approaching, feeding, swimming with

and otherwise interacting with wild dolphins in

the Southeast

3) co-host of a workshop held before the 13th

Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine

Mammals that focused on concerns about

swimming with wild dolphins

4) participation in the annual conference of the

International Marine Animal Trainers Association where NOAA Fisheries staff appealed to

public display facilities to assist with education

and outreach efforts for safe and responsible

wildlife viewing practices

5) issuance of revised viewing guidelines for

marine mammals and sea turtles in Hawaii

As a result of the studies by Samuels and Bejder (1998)

and Samuels et al. (2000), the MMC concluded that

there is “compelling evidence that any efforts to interact

intentionally with dolphins in the wild are likely to result in

at least Level B harassment and, in some cases, could

result in the death or injury of both people and marine

mammals.” The MMC therefore recommended to

NOAA Fisheries that it “promulgate regulations specifying

that any activity intended to enable in-water interactions

between humans and dolphins in the wild constitutes a

taking and is prohibited” (Letter from MMC to NOAA

Fisheries dated May 23, 2000).

NOAA Fisheries believes that these concerns apply

equally to all species of whales, dolphins, porpoises, seals

and sea lions. A recommendation to restrict swimming

and diving with whales was made at a 1988 workshop

on whale watching sponsored by the Center for Marine

Conservation and NOAA Fisheries, and there is a

growing body of scientific literature, news articles, and

complaints from the public about the disturbance of sea

lions, harbor seals, elephant seals and Hawaiian monk

seals from people closely approaching the animals

either on foot or by water vessels (e.g., motor-powered,

canoe, and kayak), or by touching, petting, and

throwing objects at the animals to elicit a reaction.

In addition to animal health and welfare concerns, there

are significant public safety concerns regarding human

interactions with wild marine mammals. Several people

have been injured while trying to feed, swim-with, pet or

otherwise interact with wild marine mammals, and in one

case a dolphin killed a swimmer who was harassing the

animal (see Santos, 1997).

Education and Outreach Efforts to Promote Responsible

Viewing

NOAA Fisheries’ efforts to address the ongoing conflict

between human recreational activities and harassment

of wild marine mammals have focused mainly on

educational initiatives. Over the past decade, NOAA

Fisheries has initiated many educational projects and

outreach efforts to teach the public about the dangers

of closely approaching marine mammals in the wild.

Many of these efforts have resulted in an increased

public awareness of the issue and, in many cases,

actions by the public to curb their potentially negative

and harmful activities.

In 1999 and 2000, NOAA Fisheries continued education

and outreach efforts to inform the public about safe and

responsible viewing practices to observe marine

habituated and highly endangered

Hawaiian monk seal exhibiting

aggressive behavior toward human

swimmers: NOAA Fisheries file photo
education and outreach page 81

concerns about the public harassing (i.e.,

closely approaching and attempting to swim

with) Hawaiian spinner dolphins in Kealakekua

Bay while the animals are trying to rest, nurse

their young and avoid predators

Outreach Efforts to the Public Display Community

During 1999 and 2000, NOAA Fisheries continued to

approach marine mammal public display facilities and

wildlife conservation groups to explore ways those

organizations could incorporate marine mammal

viewing concerns and WW information into their

respective programs. In particular, NOAA Fisheries

suggested that the public display facilities offering

interactive programs (i.e., swimming or wading

activities and petting/feeding pools) educate their

guests about the dangers of closely approaching,

feeding or swimming with marine mammals in the wild

and impress upon these guests the distinction between

the captive and wild animals. Under Section

104(c)(2)(A) of the MMPA, public display facilities that

exhibit marine mammals must offer a program for

education or conservation purposes that is based on

professionally recognized standards. In 1999, the

Alliance of Marine Mammal Parks and Aquariums

worked with NOAA Fisheries staff to develop a fact

sheet on marine wildlife viewing concerns that was

offered to Alliance member organizations and public

display facilities at large. Several, but not all, facilities

have incorporated wild marine mammal viewing

concerns into their programs.

6) response to media inquiries about the

“Protect Dolphins” campaign resulting in

feature stories in the New York Times, CNN,

ABC News, CBS News, BBC Radio, the

Sarasota Herald Tribune, and the Atlanta

Journal Constitution

7) assistance with the development of the “La

Jolla Friends of the Seals” volunteer docent

program to educate the public about harbor

seals in La Jolla, California and how to view

them without causing harassment

For 2000, highlights of education and outreach efforts

related to responsible wildlife viewing included:

1) development of revised brochures and posters

for the “Protect Dolphins - Admire Them From a

Distance” campaign

2) development and distribution of revised

enforcement warning signs specific to feeding

and harassment concerns

3) issuance of three press releases to remind the

public about the dangers of feeding and

harassing wild dolphins – May 18th to kick off the

start of the summer tourist season and

announce a Marine Mammal Awareness

Symposium that took place in Ocean City,

Maryland July 13th to address concerns about

feeding and harassment along the Atlantic

coastal states; and November 6th to announce

a public meeting in the Venice, Florida area to

discuss concerns about the public feeding wild

dolphins in the local waterways

4) development of docent program with marine

mammal experts from the Chicago Zoological

Society and Mote Marine Laboratory to address

chronic feeding of wild dolphins in the Nokomis

(Venice), Florida area

5) development of a new web site on viewing

protected marine species in the wild that

highlights the NOAA Fisheries regional viewing

guidelines for marine mammals, the “Protect

Dolphins” campaign, and links to information

about the WW program and terrestrial wildlife

viewing issues

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/MMWatch/

MMViewing.html

6) development of interpretive signs (in partnership

with NOAA Sea Grant-Hawaii, Hawaii Department of State Parks and the Kula Nai’a Wild

Dolphin Research Foundation) to address

examples of NOAA Fisheries'

brochures promoting responsible

marine wildlife viewing practices
page 82 education and outreach

During 1999-2000, NOAA Fisheries participated in

several annual trade shows and Fishermen’s forums

(Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Association’s Annual

Weekend, Maine Fishermen’s Forum, 2000 Fish Expo

and Workboat Atlantic) by presenting displays and

participating in workshops and seminars. An underwater video was produced showing contrast between

floating groundline and neutrally buoyant groundline in

lobster gear. This video was distributed to industry

organizations and was also shown at the trade shows

and forums. Handout materials were generated and

distributed describing various techniques that could be

used to comply with the gear modifications required

by the ALWTRP.

In addition, presentation of these gear modifications as

well as NOAA Fisheries’ gear research efforts were

made to a variety of industry organizations such as

Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen’s Association, Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Association Delegate’s meetings,

Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries Commissioners, Down East Lobstermen’s Association, Maine

Lobstermen’s Association, and Zone Council meetings.

NOAA Fisheries also worked with the shipping industry

to raise awareness of the whale strike problem and the

legal mandates for protecting whales. One goal of this

outreach activity was securing the industry’s help in

finding ways to decrease the likelihood of ship strikes.

NOAA Fisheries hosted a series of meetings at ports

along the Atlantic coast to involve a broad base of

constituents in the search for solutions. Outreach

activities relative to ship strike reduction included

regular attendance and presentations at port

meetings in Maine, Boston, Providence, Thames River

(Connecticut), and New York. Port operators were

provided with materials that included right whale

brochures, "A Guide for Mariners, Right Whales on the

Brink" and placards, "Guidelines for Mariners, Right

Whale Mandatory Ship Reporting System." NOAA

Fisheries has also contracted with the International

Fund for Animal Welfare to hold a series of workshops

with the shipping industry and agency representatives

to address ship strikes and develop management

options during a large workshop to be held in April

2001.

The NOAA Fisheries' NER also established an electronic

newsletter, “Whale Plan Update,” and a whale plan

website which has received more than 4,000 hits to

date. The electronic newsletter and website are an

effort to communicate on whale protection issues with

the ALWTRT and other interested parties. Meetings,

agendas, and minutes are posted. The web site also

served as a resource for media and the general public

interested in whale protection issues. A similar NER

website was developed for the Harbor Porpoise Take

Reduction Plan.

Education and Outreach in NOAA Fisheries Regions

Northeast Region

Outreach activities in the Northeast Region (NER) are

integral components of the Atlantic Large Whale Take

Reduction Plan (ALWTRP). During 1999-2000, these efforts

were designed to encourage fishing industry involvement in the design and testing of gear less likely to

entangle whales, alert fishermen to the need for gear

modifications and present options for bringing gear into

compliance. An additional goal of outreach efforts was

involving industry and non-governmental organizations in

the whale disentanglement effort.

Judge Fines Panama City Boat Rental Company and

Operator $4,500 for Illegally Feeding Dolphins

Federal Administrative Law Judge Parlen McKenna

upheld a $4,500 fine against a Panama City, Florida

boat rental company and its boat operator for illegally

feeding wild dolphins. The incident occurred during a

June 1998 excursion off Panama City’s Shell Island and

nearby jetty, a destination popular with residents and

tourists for feeding the local dolphin population.

NOAA charged Hathaway’s Boat Rentals, Inc. and

vessel captain Thomas E. Rainelli, with five counts of

harassing or attempting to harass wild dolphins by

feeding or attempting to feed the animals cigar

minnows during a June 17, 1998 parasail boat trip.

Hathaway’s Boat Rentals, Inc. also sold the minnows

that were used to feed the dolphins.

NOAA attorneys originally charged a total of $5,000 in

penalties against four parties involved in the June 17,

1998 violation, but dismissed the case against Tropical

Parasail and settled with boat crew member Chanti

Hance for $500. Hathaway’s Boat Rentals, Inc. and

Thomas Rainelli chose not to settle and pursued the

option of the civil hearing.

Ruling from the bench, Judge McKenna called the

charges “serious,” and upheld the NOAA charges and

requested sanction of $4,500. The judge also ordered

Hathaway’s Boat Rentals, Inc. to post a federal “no

dolphin feeding” sign and a poster on the grounds and

counter of its facility. The Hathaway’s Boat Rentals,

Inc. and Thomas Rainelli were allowed to divide the

payment of the $4,500 penalty at their discretion.

In addition, the judge found that Thomas Rainelli was

operating under a U.S. Coast Guard license, and as

such, charges were brought against him in a separate

proceeding for these violations since he was acting

under the authority of his Coast Guard license.
education and outreach page 83

and Turtles of the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, to

Category I and II fishermen to help accurately identify

marine mammals on their MMAP report forms. NOAA

Fisheries SER also hired a Fisheries Outreach Coordinator to build upon outreach and gear research

collaboration on fisheries/marine mammal interaction

issues at the dockside level.

In 2000, NOAA Fisheries also conducted a Marine

Mammal Stranding Workshop in Georgia to discuss the

importance of stranding data to management, current

stranding network needs, and to coordinate efforts for

data collection. An additional workshop is presently

being planned for the Gulf of Mexico.

Regarding the Northern Right Whale Recovery Plan,

members of the NOAA Fisheries Southeast Implementation Team (SEIT) , along with state, federal and nonfederal partners, have continued to coordinate on a

number of outreach efforts to educate mariners about

the threat of ship strikes in right whale habitat. These

efforts include: (1) meeting with harbor pilots and port

authority representatives; (2) annual updates to a

“Partnering Effort” with various marine user groups

defining specific actions each entity will take to avoid

right whales; and (3) distributing brochures, fliers,

videos, posters, and other information on right whales

and the threats that vessel traffic poses to them.

Members of the SEIT coordinate annually to ensure

smooth operation of the EWS. SER also assisted the

OPR in developing text notifying mariners regarding

right whales, their critical habitat, and recommended

precautions to take when transiting Southeast waters

during the calving season (appears in the Coast Pilots

and on NOAA Nautical Charts).

In September of 2000, a workshop was held in

Savannah, Georgia, between NOAA Fisheries, SEIT and

NEIT members and industry to discuss the right whale

vessel interaction problem and a document developed by the NEIT/SEIT Ship Strike Committee (a series of

recommendations on management options to help

minimize the potential for whale/vessel interactions).

This “Options Paper” has been widely circulated to the

shipping industry and other interested parties and has

been updated based on comments received. In July

1999, a Mandatory Ship Reporting System (MSR) was

implemented in a cooperative effort between NOAA

Fisheries and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). The main

purpose of the MSR is to have a means of notifying

ships entering areas of right whale concentration and

providing them with EWS information. The SER, SEIT and

USCG have worked together to distribute various

outreach materials on the MSR to the shipping

community, including informational booklets, brochures

and placards. NOAA Fisheries' SER continues to

support a quarterly newsletter, “Right Whale News,”

(edited by members of the SEIT) to keep ship

operators, harbor pilots, port authorities, fishermen,

The NER also distributed a "seal watching guidelines"

brochure to help boaters and beach-goers avoid

harassing seals. The guidelines set a minimum distance

of 50 yards and cautioned seal watchers to be

responsible viewers. The brochure also includes a seal

identification key and a section on seal facts.

Finally, the NER produced a Critical Sightings Program

(CRISP) placard, used by the U.S. Coast Guard and

made available to other state and federal agencies, to

facilitate more comprehensive and timely reporting of

off-shore sightings of right whales, and entangled or

dead whales of any species.

The NOAA Fisheries' NER Protected Resources

website can be found at:

http://www.nero.nmfs.gov/ro/doc/whale.htm

Southeast Region

In 1999 and 2000, the NOAA Fisheries' Southeast Region

(SER) continued its support of the Atlantic Large Whale

Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP) through various outreach

efforts. In 1999, the region organized a workshop with

the Southeastern U.S. Atlantic gillnet fishermen and

ALWTRP team members to discuss the plan’s requirements and learn about other gillnet fisheries operating in

the Southeast Atlantic. SER also sent annual reminder

letters to shark gillnetters regarding the ALWTRP

requirements. In addition, the region expanded the

Disentanglement Network under the ALWTRP by holding

training sessions in the mid-Atlantic and Southeast to

educate fishermen about proper reporting and

operational procedures regarding entangled whales.

Also, in 1999, shark gillnet fishermen expressed interest in

being a part of the “Early Warning System” (EWS), a

network of aerial surveys and various communication

media to ensure real-time notification of mariners

regarding whale sighting locations and notice of the

need to take precautionary measures.

In 2000, NOAA Fisheries' SER and Southeast Fisheries

Science Center (SEFSC) worked with Duke Marine

Mammal Laboratory to organize a meeting with North

Carolina stop net fishermen to discuss future plans for

observing their fishery in 2000, including the upcoming

Bottlenose Dolphin Take Reduction Team (BDTRT), and

conducted preliminary meetings with North Carolina

fishers to initiate a dialogue regarding bottlenose dolphin

take issues in advance of formation of a formal TRT.

Additionally, NOAA Fisheries worked in cooperation with

the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries on two

separate mailings of reminder letters to North Carolina

Category I and II fishermen concerning the requirements to register under the Marine Mammal Authorization Program (MMAP) and report all incidental injuries

and mortalities of marine mammals caused by

commercial fishing activities. NOAA Fisheries also

distributed a field guide, A Guide to Marine Mammals
education and outreach page 84

Presentations on marine mammal life history and

identification, handling protocols for stranded marine

mammals and a summary of marine mammal

regulations were given in shoreline communities of

Northern, Central and Southern Puget Sound.

In regards to promoting responsible marine wildlife

viewing, the NWR distributed new informational

handouts on “SHARING THE SHORE” with harbor seals to

shoreline communities, outdoor recreation shows and

information kiosks. The handouts provided information

on the life history and habitat needs of harbor seals

and promote responsible viewing practices. The NWR

also continued to issue seasonal notices to the public

on the occurrence of harbor seal pupping during the

spring and summer months, reminding the public that

seals need to use shoreline habitat during pupping and

that live animals found on beaches are to be left

undisturbed.

The NOAA Fisheries' NWR Protected Resources website

can be found at: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/

Southwest Region

In the NOAA Fisheries' Southwest Region (SWR), the

enforcement arm kept busy in 1999 and 2000 with

education and outreach efforts. Enforcement officers

participated in a variety of public meetings and

conventions, such as the Seattle Fish EXPO, the

International Diving Equipment and Marketing

Association convention, and International Association

of Chiefs of Police convention, in an effort to increase

agency visibility and recognition, disseminate

regulatory policy and agency information to the diving,

boating, and travel/tourism industries, and exhibit

marine mammal artifacts and information materials. In

addition, enforcement staff participated in numerous

community outreach projects, including Whale Fest,

Earth Day, School Career Day events and Project

“Wild” events in local schools.

In regards to promoting responsible marine wildlife

viewing, the SWR: (1) continued outreach relationships

with the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale Sanctuary

and Monterey Bay Sanctuary with onsite Enforcement

Officers and Agents assisting in outreach and

responding to harassment complaints; (2) established a

volunteer kayak docent program to reach recreational boaters; (3) worked with a network of

dedicated volunteer organizations to alert staff of

possible harassment violations, including Baynet in

Northern California, Friends of the Elephant seals in the

Piedras Blancas/San Simeon area, and Friends of the

Seals in LaJolla; and (4) continued participation in the

Kauai Monk Seal Watch Program, a partnership of

government agencies, including NOAA Fisheries and

the County of Kauai, and the public to respond to all

reports of seals hauled out along Kuaui's shoreline. The

educators, scientists, managers, policy makers, nongovernmental organizations and other concerned

citizens informed about right whale conservation efforts.

In regards to promoting responsible marine wildlife

viewing, the SER: (1) distributed the “NOAA Fisheries

Southeast Region Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle

Viewing Guidelines” brochures along with the revised

“Protect Dolphins” brochures, posters and signs to the

Southeast U.S. Marine Mammal Stranding Network

participants, dolphin/wildlife tour operators and jet ski/

boat rental businesses. In addition, “Protect Dolphins”

metal enforcement signs were posted on bridges,

channel markers, and piers, and plastic signs were

posted at educational institutions, marinas, and similar

waterway structures throughout the region; (2)

produced and distributed a “Protect Wild Dolphins”

video/radio public service announcement to reach

tourists and other marine user groups (funded from the

proceeds collected from the sale of the Protect Wild

Dolphins License Plate as authorized by Florida Statute

and funded by Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute);

(3) worked with local scientists and organizations (e.g.,

Clearwater Aquarium, Eckerd College, and Mote Marine

Laboratory) to organize meetings with the public,

especially dolphin/wildlife tour operators and jet ski/boat

rental businesses, concerning enforcement, scientific,

and outreach perspectives regarding marine mammal

viewing (future meetings are being planned for Ft.

Walton Beach, Panama City and Key West, Florida); (4)

conducted a public meeting in Nokomis, Florida, to

gather input on how to resolve the problem of illegal

feeding and harassment of wild dolphins in that area and

especially address the increasing problem of ‘Beggar,’ a

local, human-habituated dolphin known to often

approach vessels to beg for food; (5) worked with

SEEMagazine (a widely distributed tourist publication) to

produce an advertisement concerning dolphin viewing

laws and guidelines targeting areas in Florida where

dolphin feeding and harassment regularly occur; and (6)

distributed news releases about dolphin protection, and

participated in local festivals and events to spread the

word about marine mammal and sea turtle protection.

The NOAA Fisheries' SER Protected Resources website

can be found at:

http://caldera.sero.nmfs.gov/protect/protect.htm

Northwest Region

In 1999, the NOAA Fisheries' Northwest Region (NWR)

combined efforts with the Northwest Office for Law

Enforcement, Washington Department of Fish and

Wildlife and Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary to

conduct workshops for local officials on the ecology of

regional marine mammals and provisions of the MMPA.

Workshops were held for authorities around the inland

waters of Washington State, focusing on marine

mammals commonly encountered in the region.
education and outreach page 85

Washington's College of Ocean and Fisheries sciences.

In addition, staff answered interview questions from

students, participated in media (radio, television and

print) interviews, hosted students and teachers in job

shadow programs and conducted hands on

workshops for junior high school girls as part of the

Expanding Your Horizons Program. Staff also gave

tours of the NMML lab, dermestid beetle colony and

skeletal collection to visting school groups, scientists

and other NOAA employees. Staff also supervised

volunteers and interns who participated in field studies,

processed specimens and organized and catalogued

data. Staff trained NOAA Fisheries groundfish fishery

observers, U.S. Navy personnel and the crew of the

U.S. Coast Guard Polar Star to collect marine mammal

sighting data for the Platforms of Opportunity program.

Finally, staff hosted visiting scientists, responded to email requests (posted on the NMML website) and

written requests for information on internships and

career opportunities in marine mammal science.

Marine mammal educational display boards (created

by the Alaska Fisheries Science Center Diversity Panel)

and a collection of marine mammal specimens were

used in many of the outreach activities. The staff also

distributed NOAA Fisheries marine mammal and fish

posters, NOAA Year of the Ocean posters and

pamphlets, and the NOAA Fisheries Science Teacher’s

Resource Guide to teachers, students, and community

groups.

The NOAA Fisheries' NMML website can be found at:

http://nmml.afsc.noaa.gov/

Chapter References

Proceedings of the Workshop to Review and Evaluate

Whale Watching Programs and Management Needs.

1988. Center for Marine Conservation and NOAA

Fisheries.

Samuels, A. and L. Bejder. 1998. Habitual interactions

between humans and wild bottlenose dolphins

(Tursiops truncatus) near Panama City Beach, Florida.

Report to the Marine Mammal Commission, Silver

Spring, MD. 13 pp.

Samuels, A., L. Bejder and S. Heinrich. 2000. A Review

of the Literature Pertaining to Swimming with Wild

Dolphins. Report to the Marine Mammal Commission.

57 pp.

Santos, M.C.d.O. 1997. Lone sociable bottlenose

dolphin in Brazil: Human fatality and management.

Marine Mammal Science, 13(2):355-356.

government-volunteer network seeks to promote

education and appreciation of monk seals by providing

on-site information and promoting safe viewing

practices.

The NOAA Fisheries' SWR Protected Resources website

can be found at: http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/

Alaska Region

The NOAA Fisheries Alaska Region (AKR) continued its

efforts in public education and outreach related to

appropriate marine mammal viewing activities and

stranding events, in particular interactions with

apparently abandoned pups on the beaches of coastal

Alaska. The AKR conducted public outreach to inform

people that what appear to be pinniped pup strandings

are typically natural occurrences whereby the mother is

on a foraging trip and the pup is not usually abandoned.

The main cause for concern in this arena is during the

pinniped pupping season from mid-May to mid-July.

During this time period, the AKR routinely experienced a

problem with people approaching harbor seal pups on

the beach that the people believe have been

abandoned.

In addition to the above, the AKR also: (1) worked

closely with the public in developing a Final Rule on

Approach Regulations to protect humpback whales in

Alaska, limiting the minimum approach distance to 100

yards, requiring a “slow, safe speed” when near a

humpback whale, and prohibiting disruption of a whale’s

normal behavior or prior activity. The Rule goes into

effect on July 2, 2001; (2) distributed viewing guidelines

outlining a Code of Conduct to maintain when viewing

the animals from the water, air and from land; (3) placed

paid advertisements in local marine and tourist

publications detailing the Code of Conduct; (4)

collaborated with a local non-profit organization to host

a workshop providing instruction on appropriate marine

mammal viewing to charter boat operators in

Southcentral Alaska.

The NOAA Fisheries' AKR Protected Resources website

can be found at: http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/

protectedresources/default.htm

National Marine Mammal Laboratory

In 1999-2000, staff from the National Marine Mammal

Laboratory (NMML) gave presentations to school

classes and community groups on various topics,

including NMML research programs; marine mammal

biology, behavior and ecology; identification of marine

mammals in Pacific Northwest waters; marine mammal

strandings; and career opportunities in marine mammal

science. Staff also participatedi n Family Science Nights

at local elementary schools, Career Days at local high

schools, and a Career Day at the University of
page 86

APPENDICES APPENDICES APPENDICES

A - Summaries of Revised Marine Mammal Stocks A - Summaries of Revised Marine Mammal Stocks

B - Health and Stranding Response

C - Interaction with Commerical Fisheries C - Interaction with Commerical Fisheries

D - NOAA Fisheries Contact Information
Appendix A - Summaries of Revised Marine Mammal Appendix A - Summaries of Revised Marine Mammal page 87

Table 1- Revised Alaska Marine Mammal Stocks

The following table lists only the revisions made, for the data included in the table, to the 1999 marine mammal stock

assessments for the 2000 report. Changes to the estimates of abundance, human-caused mortality, and other items

are indicated with the 1999 data noted in (parenthesis) and the 2000 changes noted directly below the parenthesis.

A lack of parenthetical data indlicates that there were no changes from the 1999 report. A full summary of all marine

mammal stock assessments can be found in the Stock Assessment Reports on-line at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/

prot_res/PR2/Stock_Assessment_Program/sars.html. These reports can be viewed by region or individual stock.

NOAA X FISHERIES

Species Stock

Area

Science

Center Nmin Rmax Fr PBR

Total

Annual

Mortality

Annual

Fishing

Mortality

Strategic

Status

Beluga whale Cook Inlet AKC (273)

303 0.02 (0.50)0.30

(2.7)

1.8

(87)

65 0 Y

Gray whale

Eastern

North

Pacific

AKC (21,597)

24,477

(0.02)

0.0235 1.00 (432)575

(43)

140

(4)

64 N

Harbor

porpoise

Southeast

Alaska AKC (8,156)8,376 0.02 0.50 (82)83

(4)

3

(4)

3 N

Harbor

porpoise

Gulf of

Alaska AKC (7,085)16,630 0.02 0.50 (71)166 25 25 N

Humpback

whale

Western

North

Pacific

AKC 367 0.02 0.10 0.7 (0.2)

0.4

(0.2)

0.4 Y

Humpback

whale

Central

North

Pacific

AKC 3,698 0.02 0.10 7.4 (1.0)

2.8

(1.0)

2.8 Y

Northern fur

seal

Eastern

North

Pacific

AKC 848,359 0.043 0.50 18,244 (1,725)

1,724

(17)

16 Y

Pacificwhite--

sided dolphin

(Central)

North

Pacific

AKC (486,719)

26,880 0.02 0.50 (4,867)269 4 4 N
page 88

Table 2- Revised Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stocks

The following table lists only the revisions made, for the data included in the table, to the 1999 marine mammal stock

assessments for the 2000 report. Changes to the estimates of abundance, human-caused mortality, and other items

are indicated with the 1999 data noted in (parenthesis) and the 2000 changes noted directly below the parenthesis.

A lack of parenthetical data indlicates that there were no changes from the 1999 report. A full summary of all marine

mammal stock assessments can be found in the Stock Assessment Reports on-line at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/

prot_res/PR2/Stock_Assessment_Program/sars.html. These reports can be viewed by region or individual stock.

Species Stock Area Science

Center Nmin Rmax Fr PBR

Total

Annual

Mortality

Annual

Fishing

Mortality

Strategic

Status

Harbor seal

Western

North

Atlantic

NEC 30,990 0.12 1.0 1,859 (943)

873

(943)

873 N

Gray seal

Western

North

Atlantic

NEC N/A N/A N/A N/A (67)

75

(67)

75 N

Harp seal

Western

North

Atlantic

NEC N/A N/A N/A N/A (383)

402

(383)

402 N

Harbor

porpoise

Gulf of

Maine/Bay

of Fundy

NEC 48,289 0.04 0.5 483 (1,850)

1,5781

(1,850)

1,521 Y

Risso's dolphin

Western

North

Atlantic

NEC (11,140)

22,916 0.04 0.48 (107)220

(7.4)

52

(7.4)

52 N

Atlantic

white-sided

dolphin

Western

North

Atlantic

NEC 19,196 0.04 0.48 184 (287)

223

(287)

223 Y

Common

dolphin

Western

North

Atlantic

NEC (16,060)

23,655 0.04 0.48 (154)227

(780)

612

(780)

612 Y

Atlantic

spotted

dolphin

Western

North

Atlantic

NEC (1,617)

27,7853 0.04 0.5 (16)278

(9.9)

7.82

(9.9)

7.82 N

Pantropical

spotted

dolphin

Western

North

Atlantic

NEC (1,617)1

8,450 0.04 0.5 84 (9.9)

7.82

(9.9)

7.82 N

Striped

dolphin

Western

North

Atlantic

NEC (18,220)

44,500 0.04 0.5 (182)445

(11)

7.3

(11)

7.3 N

Bottlenose

dolphin

Western

North

Atlantic,

offshore

(NEC)

SEC

(8,794)

24,879 3 0.04 0.5 (88)249

(10)

5.3

(10)

5.3 N

Bottlenose

dolphin

Western

North

Atlantic,

coastal

SEC 2,482 0.04 0.5 25 (29)

46

(29)

46 Y

Dwarf sperm

whale

Western

North

Atlantic

SEC (N/A)

373 4 0.04 (N/A)0.5

(N/A)

3.7

(0.20)

0.25

(0.20)

0.25 N

Pygmy sperm

whale

Western

North

Atlantic

SEC (N/A)

373 4 0.04 (N/A)0.5

(N/A)

3.7

(0.20)

0.25

(0.20)

0.25 N

Bottlenose

dolphin

Gulf of

Mexico,

Bay, Sound,

Estuarine

SEC 3,933 0.04 0.5 39.7 N/A N/A Y

Appendix A - Summaries of Revised Marine Mammal Stocks
Appendix A - Summaries of Revised Marine Mammal Stocks page 89

Table 2- Revised Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stocks continued

Species

Stock

Area

Science

Center Nmin Rmax Fr PBR

Total

Annual

Mortality

Annual

Fishing

Mortality

Strategic

Status

Cuvier's

beaked

whale

Western

North

Atlantic

NEC (895)

2,419 5 0.04 0.5 (8.9)24

(9.7)

9.5

(9.7)

9.56 Y

Mesoplodon

beaked

whale

Western

North

Atlantic

NEC (895)

2,4195 0.04 0.5 (8.9)24

(9.7)

9.5

(9.7)

9.56 Y

Pilot whale,

long-finned

Western

North

Atlantic

NEC (4,968)

11,3437 0.04 (0.45)0.50

(45)

113

(40)

146

(40)

1378

(N)

Y

Pilot whale,

short-finned

Western

North

Atlantic

(NEC)

SEC

(457)

11,3437 0.04 (0.45)0.50

(4.4)

113

(40)

146

(40)

1378 Y

Sperm whale

(Western)

North

Atlantic

NEC (1,617)

3,505 0.04 0.1 (3.2)7.0 0.00 0.00 Y

North Atlantic

right whale

Western

North

Atlantic

NEC (295)

291

(0.025)

0 0.1 (0.4)0.00

(2.0)

1.4

(1.0)

0.69 Y

Humpback

whale

(Western

North

Atlantic)

Gulf of

Maine

NEC 10,019 0.065 0.1 (32.6)

33

(4.4)

3.7

(3.2)

2.710 Y

Fin whale

Western

North

Atlantic

NEC 1,803 0.04 0.1 3.6 (0.5)

0.8 0.20 11 Y

Sei whale Nova

Scotia NEC N/A 0.04 0.1 N/A 0.00 0.00 Y

Minke whale Canadian

East Coast NEC (2,145)3,097 0.04 0.5 (21)31

(5.8)

2.7

(4.8)

2.7 N

Blue whale

Western

North

Atlantic

NEC (N/A)

308 0.04 0.1 (N/A)0.6 0.00 0.00 Y

Dwarf sperm

whale

Northern

Gulf of

Mexico

SEC N/A 0.04 N/A N/A 0.00 0.00 N

Pygmy sperm

whale

Northern

Gulf of

Mexico

SEC N/A 0.04 N/A N/A 0.00 0.00 N

1. Total mortality includes 57 harbor porpoises from Canadian sink gillnet and herring weir fisheries.

2. Mortality data are not separated by species; therefore, species-specific estimates are not available. The mortality estimate

represents both Atlantic and Pantropical spotted dolphins.

3. Estimate may include sightings of the coastal form.

4. Estimate may include both the dwarf and pygmy sperm whale.

5. Estimate includes Cuvier's beaked whales and undifferentiated Mesoplodon spp. beaked whales.

6. This is the average mortality of undifferentiated Mesoplodon spp. beaked whales based on 5 years of observer data. This

annual mortality rate includes an unknown number of Cuvier's beaked whales.

7. Estimate may include both long-finned and short-finned pilot whales.

8. Mortality data are not separated by species; therefore, species-specific estimates are not available. Estimate represents both

long-finned and short-finned whales. Total annual mortality includes Nova Scotia 94-96 average of 9 long-finned pilot whales.

9. Average mortality of right whales based on 5 years of observer data (0.0) and additional fishery impact records (0.6).

10. Average mortality of humpback whales based on 5 years of observer data (0.25) and additional fishery impact records (2.4).

11. This is based on review of NOAA Fisheries anecdotal records from 94-98, that yielded an average of 0.8 human caused

mortality (0.6 ship strikes and 0.2 fishery interactions).
page 90

Table 3- Revised Pacific Marine Mammal Stocks

The following table lists only the revisions made, for the data included in the table, to the 1999 marine mammal stock

assessments for the 2000 report. Changes to the estimates of abundance, human-caused mortality, and other items

are indicated with the 1999 data noted in (parentheses) and the 2000 data noted directly below the parantheses. A

lack of paranthetical data indicates that there were no changes from the 1999 report. A full summary of all marine

mammal stock assessments can be found in the Stock Assessment Reports on-line at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/

prot_res/PR2/Stock_Assessment_Program/sars.html. These reports can be viewed by region or indiviudal stock.

Species Stock Area

Science

Center Nmin Rmax Fr PBR

Total

Annual

Mortality

Annual

Fishing

Mortality

Strategic

Status

California sea

lion U.S SWC (111,339)109,854 0.12 1.0 (6,680)6,591

(974)

1,352

(915)

1/208 N

Harbor seal California SWC 27,962 0.12 1.0 1,678 (243)

> 93

(234)

N/A N

Harbor seal Oregon/Washington

coast AKC (24,733)24,705 0.12 1.0 (1,484)1,482

(19)

> 81

(17)

> 61 N

Harbor seal Inland Washington AKC (16,104)

15,174 0.12 1.0 (966)910

(41)

> 34

(36)

> 83 N

Northern

elephant

seals

California breeding SWC 51,625 0.083 1.0 2,142 (145)

> 33

(145)

> 33 N

Northern fur

seal San Miguel Island AKC (6,720)2,336 0.086 1.0 (216)100 0.00 0.00 N

Monk seal Hawaii SWC (1,423)

1,436 0.07 0.1 5.0 N/A N/A Y

Harbor

porpoise Central California SWC 4,172 0.04 0.50 42 (24)63

(24)

63

(N)

Y

Harbor

porpoise Northern California SWC (7,640)8,061 0.04 (0.5)1.0

(76)

81

(0.00)

> 2 0.

(0.00)

> 2 0. N

Dall's porpoise California/Oregon/-

Washington SWC (34,393)81,866 0.04 (0.48)0.45

(330)

737

(22)

12

(22)

12 N

Pacific whitesided dolphinCalifornia/Oregon/-

Washington SWC (82,939)17,475 0.04 (0.48)0.45

(796)

157

(22)

> 8 6.

(22)

> 8 6. N

Risso's dolphin California/Oregon/-

Washington SWC (22,388)13,079 0.04 (0.5)0.4

(224)

105

(37)

5.5

(37)

5.5 N

California sea

lion U.S. SWC (111,339)109,854 0.12 1.0 (6.680)6.591

(974)

1,352

(915)

1,208 N

Harbor seal California SWC 27,962 0.12 1.0 1,678 (243)

> 93

(234)

N/A N

Harbor seal California/Oregon/-

Washington coast AKC (24,733)24,705 0.12 1.0 (1,484)1,482

(19)

> 81

(17)

> 61 N

Harbor seal Inland Washington AKC (16,104)

15,174 0.12 1.0 (966)910

(41)

> 34

(36)

> 83 N

Northern

elephant

seals

California breeding SWC 51,625 0.083 1.0 2,142 (145)

> 33

(145)

> 33 N

Northern fur

seal San Miguel Island AKC (6,720)2,336 0.086 1.0 (216)100 0.00 0.00 N

Monk seal Hawaii SWC (1,423)

1,436 0.07 0.1 5.0 N/A N/A Y

Appendix A - Summaries of Revised Marine Mammal Stocks
page 91

Table 3- Revised Pacific Marine Mammal Stocks continued

Species Stock Area

Science

Center

Nmin Rmax Fr PBR

Total

Annual

Mortality

Annual

Fishing

Mortality

Strategic

Status

Harbor

porpoise

Central California SWC 4,172 0.04 0.50 42 (24)

63

(24)

63

(N)

Y

Harbor

porpoise

Northern California SWC (7,640)

8,061 0.04 (0.5)1.0

(76)

81

(0.00)

> 2 0.

(0.00)

> 2 0. N

Dall's porpoise

California/Oregon/-

Washington

SWC (34,393)

81,866 0.04 (0.48)0.45

(330)

737

(22)

12

(22)

12 N

Pacific whitesided dolphinCalifornia/Oregon/-

Washington

SWC (82,939)

17,475 0.04 (0.48).045

(796)

157

(22)

> 8 6.

(22)

> 8 6. N

Risso's dolphin

California/Oregon/-

Washington

SWC (22,388)

13,079 0.04 (0.5)0.4

(224)

105

(37)

5.5

(37)

5.5 N

Bottlenose

dolphin

California coastal SWC (134)

154 0.04 0.5 (1.3)1.5 0.00 0.00 N

Bottlenose

dolphin

California/Oregon/-

Washington,

offshore

SWC (1,904)

850 0.04 (0.4)0.5

(15)

8.5

(4.4)

0.00

4.4)

0.00 N

Striped

dolphin

California/Oregon/-

Washington

SWC (19,248)

17,995 0.04 (0.4)0.5

(154)

180

(1.2)

0.00

(1.2)

0.00 N

Common

dolphin, shortbeaked

California/Oregon/-

Washington

SWC (309,717)

318,795 0.04 0.5 (3,097)3,188

(272)

79

(272)

79 N

Common

dolphin, longbeaked

California SWC (5.504)

27,739 0.04 (0.48)0.45

(53)

250 14 14 N

Northern right

whale dolphin

California/Oregon/-

Washington

SWC (15,080)

10,060 0.04 (0.5)0.48

(151)

97

(47)

15

(47)

15 N

Killer whale

Eastern North

Pacific, transient AKC (336)376 0.04 0.45 (3.0)3.4

(2.0)

2.6

(2.0)

2.4 N

Killer whale

Eastern North

Pacific, residents

AKC (89)

84 0.04 0.5 (0.9)0.8 0.00 0.00 N

Pilot whale,

short-finned

California/Oregon/-

Washington

SWC 717 0.04 (0.48)

0.4

(6.9)

5.7

(13)

3.0

(13)

3.0

(Y)

N

Baird's

beaked

whale

California/Oregon/-

Washington

SWC (252)

313 0.04 (0.4)0.5

(3.1)

2.0

(1.2)

0.00

(1.2)

0.00 N

Mesoplodon

beaked

whale

California/Oregon/-

Washington

SWC (2,840)

2,734 0.04 (0.45)0.5

(26)

27

(> ) 9.2

0.00

(9.2 - 13)

0.00 N

Cuvier's

beaked

whale

California/Oregon/-

Washington

SWC (6,070)

4,309 0.04 0.5 (61)43

(28)

0.00

(28)

0.00 N

Pygmy sperm

whale

California/Oregon/-

Washington

SWC (2,059)

2,837 0.04 (0.45)0.5

(19)

28

(2.8)

0.00

(2.8)

0.00 N

Appendix A - Summaries of Revised Marine Mammal Stocks
page 92

Table 3- Revised Pacific Marine Mammal Stocks continued

Species Stock Area

Science

Center

Nmin Rmax Fr PBR

Total

Annual

Mortality

Annual

Fishing

Mortality

Strategic

Status

(Dwarf sperm

whale)

discontinued

(California/Oregon/-

Washington) (SWC) (N/A) (0.04) (0.5) (N/A) (N/A) (N/A) (N)

Sperm whale

California/Oregon/-

Washington

SWC (992)

995 0.04 0.1 2.0 (3.0)2.5

(3.0)

2.5 Y

Humpback

whale

California/Oregon/-

Washington

SWC (563)

861 0.04 0.1 (0.5)1.7

(1.8)

1.4 1.2 Y

Blue whale

(California/Oregon/-

Washington)

Eastern North Pacific

SWC (1,463)

1,716 0.04 0.1 (1.5)1.7

(0.2)

0.00 0.00 Y

Fin whale

California/Oregon/-

Washington

SWC (747)

1,044 0.04 0.1 (1.5)2.1

(<1)

0.4 0.00 Y

Bryde's whale

California/Oregon/-

Washington

SWC 11,163 0.04 0.5 (0.2)

N/A 0.00 0.00 N

Minke whale

California/Oregon/-

Washington

SWC 440 0.04 0.45 4.0 (3.6)

0.00

(3.6)

0.00 N

Rough-toothed dolphin

Hawaii SWC (N/A)

76 0.04 0.5 (N/A)0.8 N/A N/A N

Bottlenose

dolphin

Hawaii SWC (N/A)

479 0.04 0.5 (N/A)4.8 N/A N/A N

Pantropical

spotted

dolphin

Hawaii SWC (N/A)

2,040 0.04 0.5 (N/A)20 N/A N/A N

Spinner

dolphin

Hawaii SWC (677)

2,355 0.04 0.5 (6.8)24 N/A N/A N

Striped

dolphin

Hawaii SWC (N/A)

52 0.04 0.5 (N/A)0.5 N/A N/A N

Melon-headed whale

Hawaii SWC (N/A)

81 0.04 0.5 (N/A)0.8 N/A N/A N

False killer

whale

Hawaii SWC (N/A)

83 0.04 0.5 (N/A)0.8

(N/A)

9.0

(N/A)

9.0

(N)

Y

Pilot whale,

short-finned Hawaii SWC (N/A)1,313 0.04 0.5 (N/A)13 N/A N/A N

Blainville's

beaked

whale

Hawaii SWC (N/A)

43 0.04 0.5 (N/A)0.4 N/A N/A N

Cuvier's

beaked

whale

Hawaii SWC (N/A)

29 0.04 0.5 (N/A)0.3 N/A N/A N

Sperm whale Hawaii SWC (N/A)

43 0.04 0.1 (N/A)0.4 N/A N/A Y

Appendix A - Summaries of Revised Marine Mammal Stocks
Appendix B - Health and Stranding Response page 93

Table 1. 1999 and 2000 List of Pinniped Strandings

Species

(1999/2000) SE NE NW CA HI AK

Gray Seal 0 / 1 13/17

Harbor Seal 2/10 150 / 219 176 / 148 135 / 230 6 / 11

Spotted Seal 3/0

Hooded Seal 1/1 36 / 30

California Sea Lion 35 / 52 596 / 1268

Northern Sea Lion 11/ 10

Stellar Sea Lion 3 / 5 12 / 24

Guadalupe Fur Seal 5 / 1

Northern Fur Seal 3 / 6 7 / 3

Elephant Seal 2 / 11 200 / 211 1 / 1

Bearded Seal 2 / 0

Ringed Seal 3 / 1

Harp Seal 1 / 0 115 / 145

Hawaiian Monk Seal 0 / 3

Unidentified Phocid 26 / 17 3 / 0

Unidentified Otariid 9 / 8 0 / 1 1 / 0

Unidentified Pinniped 0 / 1 4 / 12 13 / 8 112 / 133 1 / 1

TOTALS 4 / 13 318 / 423 267 / 255 1066 /1857 33 / 38
Appendix B - Health and Stranding Response page 94

Table 2. 1999 and 2000 List of Cetacean Strandings

Species SE

(99/00)

NE

(99/00)

NW

(99/00)

CA

(99/00)

HI

(99/00)

AK

(99/00)

Bottlenose dolphin 552 / 601 97 / 87 3 / 12 0 / 1

Common dolphin 0 / 6 28 / 28 37/30

Striped dolphin 0 / 1 5 / 3

Spinner dolphin 0 / 3

Atlantic spotted dolphin 4 / 7

Pantropical spotted dolphin 4 / 0

Unidentified Stenallid dolphin 2 / 2

Atlantic white-sided dolphin 1 / 0 71 / 24

Pacific white-sided dolphin 1 / 0 4 / 3 0 / 1

Northern right whale dolphin 2 / 0

Fraser's dolphin 2 / 0

Risso's dolphin 1 / 1 0 / 1 1 / 1 2 / 6

Rough-toothed dolphin 5 / 2 2 / 0 0 / 1

Harbor porpoise 58 / 6 169 / 18 7 / 6 31 / 20 3 / 2

Dall's porpoise 3 / 9 4 / 3 4 / 1

Unidentified Delphinid 2 / 0 1 / 4 13 / 11 0 / 1

Pygmy sperm whale 7 / 13 3 / 5 1 / 0 0 / 1

Dwarf sperm whale 7 / 11 2 / 0 0 / 2 0 / 1

U a nspeciated Kogi 0 / 3

Sperm whale 3 / 8 1 / 2 0 / 1 1 / 0 2 / 0 1 / 0

Beluga whale 84 / 40

Melon-headed whale 2 / 1

Short-finned pilot whale 2 / 1 0 / 0 0 / 1 1 / 0
Appendix B - Health and Stranding Response page 95

Table 2. 1999 and 2000 List of Cetacean Strandings continued

Species SE

(99/00)

NE

(99/00)

NW

(99/00)

CA

(99/00)

HI

(99/00)

AK

(99/00)

Long-finned pilot whale 2 / 0 12/15

False killer whale 1/0

Killer whale 1 / 1 1 / 0 3 / 5

Andrew's beaked whale 1/0

Baird's beaked whale 0/1

Cuvier's beaked whale 7 / 3 0 / 1 1 / 0

Gervais beaked whale

Sowerby's beaked whale

Stejneger's beaked whale 1/0

Unidentified Mesoplodon 1/0

Unidentified Ziphiid 2/0

Unidentified beaked whale 4/0

Unidentified Odontocete 2/2 0 / 1

Humpback whale 1 / 6 8 / 9 1 / 0 0 / 2 8 / 12

Minke whale 2 / 1 17 / 8 1 / 0 1 / 0

Gray whale 31 / 25 47 / 62 73 / 64

Northern right whale 2/1

Finback whale 6/1 0 / 1

Unidentified Balaenopterid 3/5 1 / 0 1 / 0

Unidentified Cetacean 5/7 3 / 4 0 / 1 11 / 13

Unidentified whale 2 / 3 3 / 2 4 / 0

TOTAL 673 / 680 428 / 214 50 / 49 154 / 157 3 / 11 198 / 139
page 96

Table 3. Evidence of Human Interaction (c. = cetacean, p. = pinniped)

Species SE

(99/00)

NE

(99/00)

NW

(99/00)

CA

(99/00)

AK

(99/00)

Fishery c. 38 / 51 c.45 / 18

p. 4 / 8

c. 2 / 2

p. 1 / 5

c. NA / 11

p. NA / 20

c. 12 / NA

p. 4 / NA

Vessel Collision c. 3 / 6 c. 2 / 0

p. 1 / 3 c. 0 / 1 c. NA / 2p. NA / 9 c. 2 / NA

Gun Shot c. 5 / 1 p. 4 / 2 p. 3 / 9 p. NA / 19 p. 4 / NA

Blunt Trauma p. 0 / 1

Mutilation c. 4 / 0 c. 15 / 0

p. 1 / 1

Plastic Ingestion c. 0 / 1 c. 1 / 0

p. 0 / 2

Power Plant Entrapment c. 0 / 1 p. 11 / 0 p. NA / 12

Harassment c. 1 / 1

p. 5 / 2

Arrow Wound p. 1 / 0

Harpoon Wound c. NA / 1

p. NA / 1

Hit by Car p. 1 / 0

Hit by Train p. 0 / 1

Debris Entanglement p. 0 / 1 p. NA / 3

Total c. 50 / 60 c. 64/ 19

p. 26/ 19

c. 2 / 3

p. 6 / 16

c. NA/14

p. NA/83

c. 14 / NA

p. 8 / NA

Appendix B - Health and Stranding Response
page 97

Table 4. National Marine Mammal Tissue Bank Collection

Species 1987-1998 1999 2000 Total

P s inniped

Ringed seal 60 12 73

Harbor seal 19 1 20

Spotted seal 3 3

Bearded seal 10 5 11 26

Elephant seal 1 1

Steller sea lion 4 4

Northern fur seal 21 15 36

Pacific walrus 24 10 34

California sea lion 19 3 10 32

Hooded seal 7 4 8 19

Harp seal 7 3 4 14

Gray seal 3 3

Cetaceans

Beluga whale 54 12 4 70

Bowhead whale 48 7 1 56

Harbor porpoise 14 9 2 25

Long-finned pilot whale 11 1 7 19

Short-finned pilot whale 1 1

Pygmy sperm whale 5 5

Gervais beaked whale 1 1

Bottlenose dolphin 7 3 11 21

Striped dolphin 3 1 4

Risso dolphin 1 1

White-sided dolphin 34 11 10 53

Common dolphin 11 1 12

Rough-toothed dolphin 17 17

Fin whale 1 1

Dwarf sperm whale 1 1 1 3

Atlantic spotted whale 1 1

Cuvier's beaked whale 1 1

Fissiped

Polar bear 35 11

Sea otter 3

Appendix B - Health and Stranding Response
Appendix C - Interaction with Commercial Fisheries page 98

This appendix also lists the marine mammal species and

stocks that are incidentally killed or injured in each

fishery based on observer data, logbook data,

stranding reports, and fishers’ reports. This list includes

all species or stocks known to incur injury or mortality in

a given fishery. However, not all species or stocks

identified are necessarily independently responsible for

a fishery’s categorization. There are a few fisheries

that are in Category II that have no recently documented interactions with marine mammals. Justifications for placement of these fisheries are by analogy to

other gear types that are known to injure or kill marine

mammals, as discussed in the final LOF for 1996 (60 FR

45086, December 28, 1995).

This appendix lists U.S. Category I and II commercial

fisheries according to their assigned categories under

section 118 of the MMPA as described in the 2001 List of

Fisheries (LOF). The estimated number of vessels/

participants is expressed in terms of the number of

active participants in the fishery, when possible. If this

information is not available, the estimated number of

vessels or persons licensed for a particular fishery is

provided. If no recent information is available on the

number of participants in a fishery, the number from the

1996 is used.

Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Fisheries

Table 1. 2001 List of Category I and II Fisheries

CATEGORY I

Fishery Description

Est. # of

vessels/persons

Marine mammal species and stocks incidentally

injured and killed

GILLNET FISHERIES:

Atlantic Ocean,

Caribbean, Gulf of

Mexico large

pelagic drift

gillnets

15

North Atlantic right whale, WNA; Humpback whale,

WNA; Sperm whale, WNA; Dwarf sperm whale, WNA;

Cuvier's beaked whale, WNA; True's beaked whale,

WNA; Gervais' beaked whale, WNA; Blainville's

beaked whale, WNA; Risso's dolphin, WNA; Longfinned pilot whale, WNA; Short-finned pilot whale,

WNA; White-sided dolphin, WNA; Common dolphin,

WNA; Atlantic spotted dolphin, WNA; Pantropical

spotted dolphin, WNA; Striped dolphin, WNA; Spinner

dolphin, WNA; Bottlenose dolphin, WNA offshore;

Harbor porpoise, GME/BF

Northeast sink

gillnet 341

North Atlantic right whale, WNA; Humpback whale,

WNA; Minke whale, Canadian east coast; Killer whale,

WNA; White-sided dolphin, WNA; Bottlenose dolphin,

WNA offshore; Harbor porpoise, GME/BF; Harbor seal,

WNA; Gray seal, WNA; Common dolphin, WNA; Fin

whale, WNA; Spotted dolphin, WNA; False killer whale,

WNA; Harp seal, WNA

LONGLINE FISHERIES:

Atlantic Ocean,

Caribbean, Gulf of

Mexico large

pelagics longline

36

Humpback whale, WNA; Minke whale, Canadian east

coast; Risso's dolphin, WNA; Long-finned pilot whale,

WNA; Short-finned pilot whale, WNA; Common

dolphin, WNA; Atlantic spotted dolphin, WNA;

Pantropical spotted dolphin, WNA; Striped dolphin,

WNA; Bottlenose dolphin, WNA offshore; Bottlenose

dolphin, GMX Outer Continental Shelf; Bottlenose

dolphin, GMX Continental Shelf Edge and Slope;

Atlantic spotted dolphin, Northern GMX; Pantropical

spotted dolphin, Northern GMX; Risso's dolphin,

Northern GMX; Harbor porpoise, GME/BF

TRAP/POT FISHERIES:

Gulf of Maine

U.S./Mid-Atlantic

lobster trap/pot

13,000

North Atlantic right whale, WNA; Humpback whale,

WNA; Fin whale, WNA; Minke whale, Canadian east

coast; Harbor seal, WNA
page 99

Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Fisheries Continued

CATEGORY II

Fishery Description

Est. # of

vessels/persons

Marine mammal species and stocks incidentally

injured and killed

GILLNET FISHERIES:

Gulf of Maine small

pelagics surface

gillnet

133 Humpback whale, WNA; White-sided dolphin, WNA;

Harbor seal, WNA

Southeastern U.S.

Atlantic shark

gillnet

12 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal; North Atlantic right

whale, WNA; Atlantic spotted dolphin, WNA

U.S. Mid-Atlantic

coastal gillnet >655

Humpback whale, WNA; Minke whale, Canadian east

coast; Bottlenose dolphin, WNA offshore; Bottlenose

dolphin, WNA coastal; Harbor porpoise, GME/BF;

Harbor seal, WNA; Harp seal, WNA; Long-finned pilot

whale, WNA; Short-finned pilot whale, WNA; White -

sided dolphin, WNA; Common dolphin, WNA

TRAWL FISHERIES:

Atlantic herring

midwater trawl

(including pair

trawl)

17 Harbor seal, WNA

Atlantic squid,

mackerel,

butterfish trawl

620

Common dolphin, WNA; Risso's dolphin, WNA;

Long-finned pilot whale, WNA; Short-finned pilot

whale, WNA; White-sided dolphin, WNA

PURSE SEINE FISHERIES:

Gulf of Mexico

menhaden purse

seine

50 Bottlenose dolphin, Western GMX coastal; Bottlenose

dolphin, Northern GMX coastal

HAUL/BEACH SEINE FISHERIES:

Mid-Atlantic haul

seine

25 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal; Harbor porpoise,

GME/BF

STOP NET FISHERIES:

North Carolina roe

mullet stop net 13 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal

Appendix C - Interaction with Commercial Fisheries
page 100 Appendix C - Interaction with Commerical Fisheries

Pacific Ocean Fisheries

CATEGORY I

Fishery Description

Est. # of

vessels/persons

Marine mammal species and stocks incidentally

injured and killed

GILLNET FISHERIES:

CA angel

shark/halibut and

other species large

mesh (>3.5in) set

gillnet

58

Harbor porpoise, central CA; Common dolphin, shortbeaked, CA/OR/WA; Common dolphin, long-beaked

CA; California sea lion, U.S.; Harbor seal, CA; Northern

elephant seal, CA breeding; Sea otter, CA

CA/OR thresher

shark/swordfish

drift gillnet

130

Steller sea lion, Eastern U.S.; Sperm whale, CA/OR/WA;

Dall's porpoise, CA/OR/WA; Pacific white sided

dolphin, CA/OR/WA; Risso's dolphin, CA/OR/WA;

Bottlenose dolphin, CA/OR/WA offshore; Short-beaked

common dolphin CA/OR/WA; Long-beaked common

dolphin CA/OR/WA; Northern right whale dolphin,

CA/OR/WA; Short-finned pilot whale, CA/OR/WA;

Baird's beaked whale, CA/OR/WA; Mesoplodont

beaked whale, CA/OR/WA; Cuvier's beaked whale,

CA/OR/WA; Pygmy sperm whale, CA/OR/WA;

California sea lion, U.S.; Northern elephant seal, CA

breeding; Humpback whale, CA/OR/WA-Mexico;

Minke whale, CA/OR/WA; Striped dolphin, CA/OR/WA;

Killer whale, CA/OR/WA Pacific coast; Northern fur

seal, San Miguel Island

CATEGORY II

Fishery Description

Est. # of

vessels/persons

Marine mammal species and stocks incidentally injured and killed

GILLNET FISHERIES:

AK Bristol Bay salmon

drift gillnet 1,884

Steller sea lion, Western U.S.; Northern fur seal, Eastern Pacific;

Harbor seal, Bering Sea; Beluga whale, Bristol Bay; Gray whale,

Eastern North Pacific; Spotted seal, AK; Pacific white-sided

dolphin, North Pacific

AK Bristol Bay salmon

set gillnet 941

Harbor seal, Bering Sea; Beluga whale, Bristol Bay; Gray whale,

Eastern North Pacific; Northern fur seal, Eastern Pacific; Spotted

seal, AK

AK Cook Inlet salmon

drift gillnet 560

Steller sea lion, Western U.S.; Harbor seal, GOA Harbor porpoise,

GOA; Dall's porpoise, AK; Beluga whale, Cook Inlet

AK Cook Inlet salmon

set gillnet 604 Steller sea lion, Western U.S.; Harbor seal, GOA; Harbor porpoise,GOA; Dall's porpoise, AK; Beluga whale, Cook Inlet
page 101

Pacific Ocean Fisheries

CATEGORY II

Fishery Description

Est. # of

vessels/persons

Marine mammal species and stocks incidentally

injured and killed

GILLNET FISHERIES:

AK Kodiak salmon set

gillnet 172 Harbor seal, GOA; Harbor porpoise, GOA; Sea otter,AK

A e K Metlakatla /Annett

Island salmon drift gillnet 60 None documented

AK Peninsula /Aleutian

Islands salmon drift gillnet 163 Northern fur seal, Eastern Pacific; Harbor seal, GOA;Harbor porpoise, Bering Sea; Dall's porpoise, AK

AK Peninsula /Aleutian

Islands salmon set gillnet 110 Steller sea lion, Western U.S.; Harbor porpoise, BeringSea

AK Prince William Sound

salmon drift gillnet 509

Steller sea lion, Western U.S.; Northern fur seal, Eastern

Pacific; Harbor seal, GOA; Pacific white-sided dolphin,

North Pacific; Harbor porpoise, GOA; Dall's porpoise,

AK; Sea Otter, AK

AK Southeast salmon drift

gillnet 439

Steller sea lion, Eastern U.S.; Harbor seal, Southeast AK;

Pacific white-sided dolphin, North Pacific; Harbor

porpoise, Southeast AK; Dall's porpoise, AK; Humpback

whale, central North Pacific

AK Yakutat salmon set

gillnet 139 Harbor seal, Southeast AK; Gray whale, Eastern NorthPacific

WA Puget Sound Region

salmon drift gillnet

(includes all inland waters

south of US-Canada

border and eastward of

the Bonilla-Tatoosh line

–Treaty Indian fishing is

excluded)

725 Harbor porpoise, inland WA; Dall's porpoise,

CA/OR/WA; Harbor seal, WA inland

PURSE SEINE FISHERIES:

Ak Southeast salmon 357 Humpback whale, Central North Pacific

CA anchovy, mackerel,

tuna

150 Bottlenose dolphin, CA/OR/WA offshore;

California sea lion, U.S.; harbor seal, CA

CA squid 65 Short-finned pilot whale, CA/OR/WA

TRAWL FISHERIES:

AK miscellaneous finfish

pair trawl 4 None documented

LONGLINE FISHERIES:

OR swordfish floating

longline

2 None documented

OR blue shark floating

longline

1 None documented

Appendix C - Interaction with Commercial Fisheries

List of Abbreviations

AK - Alaska

CA - California

FL - Florida

GA - Georgia

GME/BF - Gulf of Marine/Bay of Fundy

GOA - Gulf of Alaska

HI - Hawaii

NC - North Carolina

OR - Oregon

SC - South Carolina

TX - Texas

WA - Washington

WNA - Western North Atlantic
Appendix C - Interaction with Commercial Fisheries page 102

Table 2. Take Reduction Plans/Teams Timeline of Major Events and imeline of Major Events and Federal Register Federal Register Citations

Take Reduction Team Timeline

Pacific Offshore

Cetacean

Atlantic Offshore

Cetacean

Gulf of Maine Harbor

Porpoise

Mid-Atlantic

Harbor Porpoise

Atlantic Large Whale

Notice of

First

Meeting

Feb. 15, 1996

(61 FR 5385)

May 23, 1996

(61 FR 25846)

Feb. 12, 1996

(61 FR 5384)

Feb. 25, 1997

(62 FR 8428)

Aug 6, 1996

(61 FR 40819)

First

meeting

Feb. 13-14, 1996 May 29-30, 1996 Feb. 14-15, 1996 Mar. 4-5, 1997 Sept. 16-17, 1996

Draft plan

submitted

to NOAA

Fisheries

Aug. 15, 1996 Nov. 25, 1996 Aug. 8, 1996 Aug. 25, 1997 Feb. 5, 1997

Draft plan

and

proposed

rule

published

Feb. 14, 1997

(62 FR 6931)

Draft plan and

proposed rule

not published

management

changes

Aug. 13, 1997

(62 FR 43302)

Comment period

reopened and

extended to Jan. 14,

1998 (62 FR 65402).

Revised proposed rul

Sept. 11, 1998

(63 FR 48670)

Sept. 11, 1998

(63 FR 48670)

Apr. 7, 1997

(62 FR 16519)

Final plan

and final

rule

published

Final Rule

Oct. 3, 1997

(62 FR 51805)

Technical

amendment

May. 21, 1998

(63 FR 27860)

Interim final rule

Jan. 22, 1999

(64 FR 3431)

IFR,

Aug, 24, 2001

(66 FR 44549)

Partially

implemented

under Highly

Migratory

Species FMP

5/28/1999 (64 FR

29089)

Final Rule

Dec. 2, 1998

(63 FR 66464)

Correction notice

Dec 23, 1998

(63 FR 71041)

Delaware Bay

exemption

Jan. 11, 2001

(66 FR 2336)

Final Rule

Dec. 2, 1998

(63FR 66464)

Correction

notice

Dec 23,1998

(63 FR71041)

Delaware Bay

exemption

Jan 11,2001

(66 FR2336)

Interim final rule

(62 FR 39157) July 22, 1007

Final rule

(64 FR 7529) Feb 16, 1999

FR-Partial stay

(64 FR 17292) Apr 9, 1999

FR-suspension

(64 FR 73434) Dec 30, 1999

Final Rule

(65 FR 70316) Nov 22, 2001

FR- gear mod

(65 FR 80368) Dec 21, 2001

FR-delay of effective date

(66 FR 5489) Jan 19, 2001

FR-Temporary area and gear restrictions

(66 FR27042) May 16, 2001

Correction (66 FR 29213) May 29, 2001

PR-Gear modifications

(66 FR 49896) Oct 1, 2001

PR-DynamicArea Management

(66 FR 50160) Oct 2, 2001

ANPR-notice of intent to prepare an EIS

(66 FR 50390) Oct 3, 2001

PR-Seasonal Area Management

(66 FR 59394) Nov 28, 2001

PR-Dynamic Area Management

(66 FR1133) Jan 9, 2002

IFR- Seasonal Area Management

(66 FR 1142) Jan 9, 2002

FR- gear modifications

(66 FR 1300) Oct 10, 2002

Follow-up

2/97, 6/98, 5/00,

5/01

Team disbanded

8/7/01 12/99, 12/00 1/00, 11/00 10/15-16/96, 12/9-10/96, 2/8-10/99, 2/2-24/00,4/11/00, 5/23-24/00, 6/27-28/01
Appendix C - Interaction with Commercial Fisheries page 103

Species Fisheries Injured Killed

Gray whale CA/OR thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet 0 1

Pilot whale Atlantic Ocean/Caribbean/Gulf of Mexico large pelagics drift gillnet 0 1

Unid. Baleen whale CA/OR thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet 0 1

Bottlenose dolphin Southeastern U.S. Atlantic shark gillnet 4 1

U.S. Mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet 0 2

Gulf of Mexico menhaden purse seine 0 1

Common dolphin CA/OR thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet 8 37

Harbor porpoise Atlantic squid,mackerel, butterfish trawl 0 2

CA angel shark/halibut & other species large mesh (3.5 in) set gillnet 6 3

Northeast sink gillnet 0 5

Dall’s porpoise WA/OR/CA groundfish trawl 0 1

AK Southeast Alaska salmon drift gillnet 0 1

Humpback whale WA/OR/CA groundfish trawl 0 1

Fin whale, finback AK misc. finish pair trawl 1 0

Unid. small cetacean CA/OR thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet 0 3

AK Bristol Bay salmon drift gillnet 0 1

AK Kodiak salmon set gillnet 0 1

California sea lion CA/OR thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet 0 3

AK Bristol Bay salmon drift gillnet 0 1

AK Kodiak salmon set gillnet 0 1

Steller sea lion AK misc. finish pair trawl 0 1

CA/OR thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet 0 1

Harbor seal CA angel shark/halibut & other species large mesh (3.5 in) set gillnet 4 19

U.S. Mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet 0 1

Northeast sink gillnet 0 2

Spotted seal AK Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands groundfish trawl 0 1

Northern elephant seal CA angel shark/halibut & other species large mesh (3.5 in) set gillnet 0 2

CA/OR thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet 2 1

Grey seal Northeast sink gillnet 0 1

Unid. Seal Northeast sink gillnet 0 1

TOTAL 25 97

Table 3. 1999 Marine Mammal Authorization Pr able 3. 1999 Marine Mammal Authorization Program Mortality/Injury Report
Appendix C - Interaction with Commercial Fisheries page 104

Table 4. 2000 Marine Mammal Authorization Pr able 4. 2000 Marine Mammal Authorization Program Mortality/Injury Report

Species Fisheries Injured Killed

Gray whale trap/crab 0 1

Pilot whale Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico large pelagics longline 3 0

Bottlenose dolphin U.S. Mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet 0 2

Gulf of Mexico menhaden purse seine 1 4

Common dolphin CA/OR thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet 3 15

Gulf of Mexico menhaden purse seine 0 1

Atlantic squid, mackerel, butterfish trawl fishery 0 5

Harbor porpoise AK Peninsula/Aleutian Islands salmon set gillnet 1 0

Northeast sink gillnet 0 3

Humpback whale Northeast sink gillnet 0 1

CA/OR thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet 1 0

Prince William Sound salmon drift gillnet 1 0

Pacific-white sided dolphin CA/OR thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet 0 11

Risso’s dolphin CA/OR thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet 0 2

Northeast sink gillnet 0 1

Unid. small cetacean CA/OR thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet 4 1

Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico large pelagics longline 1 0

California sea lion CA/OR thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet 0 23

CA angel shark/halibut & other species large mesh (.3.5 in) set gillnet 0 25

Steller sea lion AK Bering Sea & Aleutian Islands groundfish trawl 0 5

Harbor seal CA angel shark/halibut & other species large mesh (.3.5 in) set gillnet 0 3

Northeast sink gillnet 0 3

Northern elephant seal CA angel shark/halibut & other species large mesh (.3.5 in) set gillnet 0 1

CA/OR thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet 1 1

Grey seal Northeast sink gillnet 0 4

Unid. seal AK Bering Sea & Aleutian Islands groundfish trawl 0 1

CA/OR thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet 0 1

Walrus AK Bering Sea & Aleutian Islands groundfish trawl 0 1

TOTAL 16 115
page 105

NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected Resources

1315 East-West Highway

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

phone (301) 713-2289

fax (301) 713-0376

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res.html

NOAA Fisheries Northeast Region NOAA Fisheries Northeast Fisheries Science Center

One Blackburn Drive 166 Water Street

Gloucester, MA 01930-2298 Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026

phone (978) 281-9328 phone (508) 495-2000

fax (978) 281-9394 fax (508) 495-2258

http://www.nero.nmfs.gov http://www.nefsc.nmfs.gov

NOAA Fisheries Southeast Region NOAA Fisheries Southeast Fisheries Science Center

9721 Executive Center Drive 75 Virginia Beach Drive

St. Petersburg, FL 33702-2432 Miami, FL 33149-1003

phone (727) 570-5312 phone (305) 361-4284

fax (727) 570-5517 fax (305) 361-4219

http://caldera.sero.nmfs.gov http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov

NOAA Fisheries Northwest Region NOAA Fisheries Northwest Fisheries Science Center

7600 Sand Point Way NE 2725 Montlake Blvd. E., West Bldg.

Seattle, WA 98115-0070 Seattle, WA 98112-2097

phone (206) 526-6150 phone (206) 860-3200

fax (206) 526-6426 fax (206) 860-3217

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov

NOAA Fisheries Southwest Region NOAA Fisheries Southwest Fisheries Science Center

501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200 8604 La Jolla Shores Drive

Long Beach, CA 90802-4213 La Jolla, California 92038-0271

phone (562) 980-4020 phone (858) 546-7000

fax (562) 980-4027 fax (858) 546-7003

http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov http://swfsc.nmfs.noaa.gov

NOAA Fisheries Alaska Region NOAA Fisheries Alaska Fisheries Science Center

P.O. Box 21168 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Bldg. 4

Juneau, AK 99802 Seattle, WA 98115-6349

phone (907) 586-7221 phone (206) 526-4045

fax (907) 586-7131 fax (206) 526-6615

http://www.fakr.noaa.gov http://www.nmml.afsc.noaa.gov

Appendix D - NOAA Fisheries Contact Information

www.nmfs.noaa.gov www.nmfs.noaa.gov

www.doc.gov www.doc.gov www.noaa.gov www.noaa.gov